Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 542902
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-08-08
No. If you advertise a box with five cubic metres of space and you actually get two then the law has and can act on that kind of misrepresentation. You cannot argue that you do actually get that advertised storage but the walls of the box take up over 50% of it. It simply doesn't work like that.
You're going to have to do a lot better than that to make any kind of point. Not only is the analogy terrible, I have yet to see a single law cited to support theories like yours.
If that is true, it should be absolutely no problem for you to start citing laws and successful lawsuits based on false advertisement of a product because how much actual "free space" was not clearly described in the advertisement.
Now you get the chance to prove there's any shred of truth to anything you've said. I'm going to warn you though, I expect to see citations of laws and/or cases that actually address the very issue you & others are whining about -- meaning don't waste anyones time citing some irrelevant bullshit and trying to force it to fit.
You hate Microsoft, I get it. But, this case is going nowhere and anyone with any common sense knows it.