Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 542918
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 05/18/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Nope. There is an implication there that is very, very clear and legally it has been proven umpteen times in false advertising cases.
Yes it does, because legally it is going to be decided at what point the free space left to a user versus the advertisement goes beyond what is reasonable. Look up legal precedents for this.
How far do we go here. Advertise 32GB of storage and leave the user with 1GB? That's clearly not acceptable.
Crap. This is false advertising, plain and simple. Look it up.
Learn about false advertising and precedents in that area or shut your mouth. Having to resort to asking for a specific law prohibiting this means you don't know what on Earth you are talking about.
You give with one hand and take away with another. I'm afraid that legally speaking this is the view that will be taken and one way or another Microsoft will be forced into doing that.
No I'm afraid it isn't because there is a clear implication of storage space. A consumer has no control over how much of that 32GB they get. If there is a problem here you don't advertise any storage space at all. Simple.
ROTFL. What's really funny are people who have crazy ideas that the computer and technology industries are different from anything else and laws and legality don't apply to them. They do I'm afraid.
Cry me a river. Boo, hoo, hoo, it's all an anti-Microsoft conspiracy.
Doesn't change the fact that this is false advertising, there are precedents for this, you don't know that and I'm afraid there is very good legal merit here.
Edited 2012-11-18 13:47 UTC