If you think only vampires like to see blood, read the internal memos of Microsoft Engineer Vinod Vallopillil. The memos - dubbed Halloween 1, 2 & 3 - were published on Open Source supporter Eric Raymond's web site late last month and identify Linux and other open source software as a direct threat to Microsoft's market share. The documents go on to mention various ways of eliminating this threat, like the introduction of proprietary protocols. "OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of high commoditized, simple protocols," one of the notes states. "By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS [Open Source Software] projects entry into the market." In plain English, this means to use a computer you will have to use Microsoft products. "Microsoft has to innovate beyond standard protocols. We would lose differentiation if we did not, and we would not be able to solve problems that other people could solve if we stayed with standard protocols," states Ed Muth, enterprise marketing group manager at Microsoft. But user beware, it's a standard Microsoft tactic to present something as valuable to the customer and more broadly to the computer community while its only effect is yet another tentacle reaching out for total control of the information market. As the title of Eric Raymond's site says, "Therefore, for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose."
The remarkable thing about the Halloween memos is not the proposition of aggressive tactics that will certainly become company policy but rather Vallopillil's admission in the second note that Linux and the Open Source movement pose a threat to Microsoft. This is the opposite of public statements by the company downplaying the importance of Linux and suggesting that Fortune 1,000 companies have no or little interest in open source software. But Microsoft is known for being poor at analyzing market trends and forseeing the results, one good example being the company's treatment of the internet until late 1995. The downplaying of Linux could be due to the same lack of talent. The existence of the Halloween memos could mean the procedure of changing course has been set into motion.
The Microsoft response to the Halloween memos is one of indiference. While admiting that the memoranda are authentic, Microsoft representative Adam Sohn said that "It's just a document prepared and offered up to management. People craft these sorts of documents all the time." They also made it clear that Mr. Vallopillil's statements are, of course, in no way reflective of official company policy.

The three Halloween memos are avilable online at tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html, opensource.org/halloween2.html and opensource.org/halloween3.html.

Microsoft announced two weeks ago that the name of their upcoming operating system, formerly referred to as NT 5.0, will be called Windows 2000. Apparently they overlooked a web site of the same name, windows2000.com wisely trademarked back in 1996. In typical Microsoft fashion, Win2K product manager Craig Beilinson sees no problem with the name's trademark. He says "We’ve been naming Windows by the year since 1995," and contends that the year simply refers to a version number. Site owner Bob Kerstein doesn't plan to press any charges (probably fearing the usual countersuit), but says he was upset Microsoft didn't even bother to contact him and ask permission to use the name. The company pulled a similar stunt with Internet Explorer, marketing the name despite its trademark by another company; and the Windows NT moniker wasn't exactly looked upon favorably by Northern Telecom. But with its track record in mind, it appears that MS will get its way yet again with all five versions (and counting) of Windows 2000.

COURT NOTES: Following the completion of Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale's testimony, the government called America Online executive David Colburn to explain why his company chose Internet Explorer over Netscape's Navigator. He said AOL was ready to enter into a deal with Netscape until they realized how devastating Microsoft's own online service would be to the company: "Because Microsoft was the largest operating system provider, Microsoft had a potentially decisive strategic advantage in competing against other online service providers such as AOL through its ability to bundle MSN with the Windows operating system and place an MSN icon in a prominent position on the desktop."
So even though Netscape was willing to produce a custom version of its browser just for AOL, the company decided to use IE because Microsoft demanded it in trade for a prominent location on the Windows 95 desktop. "AOL was willing to agree to virtual exclusivity with Microsoft — something to which AOL would not have otherwise agreed - because AOL believed that inclusion in the Windows operating system and on the desktop was essential," Colburn testified. He also said that AOL's contract with The Behemoth prevented it from promoting Netscape products, although they are avilable for download deep inside the AOL web site.
After Mr. Colburn's testimony ended that Thursday, the DOJ played excerpts of Bill Gates' video testimony for jurors. The portions shown (reminiscent of the Clinton tapes from several months ago) feature a tense, snippy, defensive Bill Gates denying any knowledge of threats, illegal activity, persuasion, coercion, communication, conversation or (apparently) any activity at all inside Microsoft. Gates claimed he has no memory of sending the dozens of e-mails prosented as evidence against him, has no knowledge of any agreements with Apple about Internet Explorer and is not in charge of any Microsoft products being released for the Mac. At one point during the tape, presiding judge Thomas Penfield Jackson turned away from the room and apprently shook his head with amazed amusement. After the viewing, Microsoft lawyers said Gates answered all questions accurately and truthfully, then claimed that the DOJ is attempting to use the tapes to 'demonize' Gates, as if it could hurt his image more than their actions already have.
When the trial started back up the following Monday, Avadie Tevanian Jr., Apple's senior VP of software engineering, took the witness stand. Tevanian testified that Microsoft pressured the computer company to stop developing its QuickTime multimedia technology. In exchange, Microsoft would let Apple have the much smaller market for video editing software. When Apple rejected that offer, Microsoft pressured other companies to stop using their multimedia software. Tevenian then said that Microsoft began to experience "bugs" in various programs that caused QuickTime to run slowly, have low image quality or just not run at all. When Apple programmers contacted Microsoft about the problems, the company told them that it would stop producing the Macintosh version of Office unless they let it invest $150 million dollars into Apple and agree to make Internet Explorer the MacOS' default browser.

A full transcript of the Gates video is available at usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f2000/2051.htm.

Microsoft's WebTV has quietly dropped plans to add support for Java to its television-internet boxes. The company had talked publically about plans to eventually build in Java since its creation, but little has been said since Microsoft bought WebTV in April 1997. WebTV's Steve Perlman defends this decision, explaining that Java support would add as much as twenty percent to the device's $200 pricetag. (So people are willing to pay $200 for it, but not $220?) Perlman also explained that most WebTV users are probably confused by Java, but future WinCE-based version of the television boxes may support the technology anyway. On a similar note, WebTV has also refused to update its support for Microsoft competitor RealNetworks' software, choosing to run the year-old version 3. The service's failure to support standards, lack of Java support, cost, inability to support frames and frequent outages may drive customers towards AOL's competing InternetTV service, NetChannel.

After an October 23 report about it on News.com, Microsoft temporarily shut down a web site that gave out security information on 108,000 customers. The site, where Money users could upgrade to Money 99, was using an insecure form to take customers' names, phone numbers, e-mails and postal addresses, which could be viewed in the document source. Microsoft took the offending site down that day and returned it with repairs the following Monday.
A error on the MSN web site last week caused a password/login prompt to show up on users' screens, making some worry about a trojan horse program to steal passwords. Microsoft said that the problem was caused by MSN's dynamic publishing system when an MSN staffer apparently forgot to update the password on a particular section of the site.
Late last month Micrsoft posted a fresh version of Office 97 Service Pack 2, claiming that it worked out the installation problems that forced the company to pull the update a month ago. Users who downloaded the earlier version reported trouble installing it when Office SP1 had also been used. The glorified bug patch reportedly includes fixes for the Excel calculation problems reported here earlier this year, updated support for the Euro, a fix for the Access ComboBox record editing issue, year-2000 compliance updates and other corrections.
The fourth service pack for Windows NT 4 was posted LAST week, and it has some of the same features as the SP for Office, like updated euro support and Y2K patches. But the usual problems of hardware incompatability, software conflicts and setting changes are present, plus you also have to deal with the problem of Microsoft's poorly designed, badly lagged web site in order to get the patch, unless you're willing to shell out $20 for the CD version.
In our last report two weeks ago, we said to expect Office 2000, Windows 2000 and IE5 to all ship on the same date. Testers who have used betas of the products are now confirming that Office2K and IE5 will ship earlier in 1999 with Windows 98 Service Pack 1, not Windows 2000. This is probably to ensure that at least some of these products ships before the end of fiscal year 1999 instead of mid-2000, which Win2K is liklier and likely to do.

_{Microsoft wades into embedded market
Microsoft paid Apple $150m to settle suit
MS steps up Novell campaign
Sun To Rev Up Browser Push}