Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC
Windows A California man is suing Microsoft, alledging that his Surface tablet did not provide the advertised amount of disk space. The 32G device has 16G of space for users, as the operating system uses the other 16G. The 64G Surface leaves 45G free for users. The case will turn on whether Microsoft has clearly explained to customers how much free space the Surface leaves for their use outside of the OS. How much disk space does your OS consume?
Permalink for comment 542982
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 20th Nov 2012 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:

I cited Wikipedia because it is something simple for someone with the limited intelligence that you obviously have that clearly and factually shows that your opinions in this thread are not just wrong, but willfully wrong.

First, there are indeed laws on the books in the US that deal with false advertising which is regulated by the FTC. This is fact, not opinion. Therefore this lawyer can make a case against Microsoft.

Second, it specifically cites prior precedents concerning just such a case as this concerning false advertising and perceived versus actual hard drive space. If you had actually read the fucking footnotes, you would have seen this. But you didn't therefore I will spoon-feed you the information.

This is again fact, not opinion. You want to find more, then fucking research it yourself. Try LexisNexis or this link:

So you now have two cases from 2006 and 2007. Let's move forward and spoon-feed you some more since you obviously require it. There is this little thing that we have in America called the Lanham Act. Here is the Wikipedia link on it so you can educate yourself further:

Here is a link to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act which specifically deals with 'false advertising':

Section 1 sub paragraphs A & B cover what is being sued for in this particular case with regards to Microsoft's alleged false advertising of 32GB space provided when in actuality there is about half of that (16GB) for usage.

There is indeed a law, and that is what is being used when the lawyer filed this case. There is precedent given the two cases from 2006 and 2007 with Seagate & Western Digital concerning false advertising (misleading consumers concerning actual versus stated space) so the case will be entertained by a court with all due respect and seriousness. I suspect it will go to litigation and be settled out of court just like the previous two were, but that does not change the fact that you and Lucas are fucking wrong. Not just a little, but totally & completely.

This is not about hating on the Microsoft. You may agree or disagree that it is a frivolous lawsuit, however, it does have merit based on case law and precedent which I have now cited for you because you are too intellectually lazy to research it yourself and correct your own willful stupidity.

You can wiggle and you can waggle all you want that you two are right. You two are simply wrong on this. Please pull your head out of your ass (not that I expect you will do so) and quit while you are ahead. You two are really starting to embarrass yourselves.

That is because they are most likely paid shills, mimicking whatever Microsoft says to them. They can't grasp the difference between Samsung or other manufacturers saying "32GB" on the box and Microsoft saying "of storage" in addition, completely different legal meaning and interpretation.

Yes, that's very likely isn't it -- that Microsoft pays people to go around posting whatever they instruct, on little forums around the web. Would you like a tin foil hat with your theory? As members of the Microsoft-Haters fan club, you should already have one but an extra to keep close won't hurt you.

Now, nobody said there isn't laws on the books about false advertising but nice deflection attempt. Let's look at a scenario that actually does have something to do with what we're talking about.. Now I wonder why of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of computers sold per year and advertised as having xGB worth of space, there hasn't been a single case brought forward to whine about how yGB of that xGB is being used by pre-installed software (OS included), and that only zGB is actually free. If it's such a simple case with obvious laws on the books, you would think that at least one single case would have been accepted and successfully prosecuted. But no, that hasn't happened. Let's not forget, your little circle-of-clueless are the ones claiming this has happened several times, in several countries. But yet the best you come up with is a story about WD that doesn't even address, at all, what the supposed problem is. The only way you can connect it at all is by throwing out all of the relevant details. The fact that you don't understand this, and that you wasted your time typing some long opinion based on it, only shows how much you don't even understand the very problem you yourself claim exists.

I feel like I'm dealing with a stupid, literally stupid, dog. You tell it to fetch ball and it brings you a rock hoping you don't notice it's not a ball. You tell it to go fetch a ball again and this time you brings back clump of dirt..... You get the picture. Either you, the dog, is completely confused about what you're being asked to fetch, or you simply can't do it so you bring back other crap hoping that if you look at it from the right angle and in the right light, it looks close enough and nobody will notice you failed. But unfortunately, for you, your failure is blatantly obvious in every reply you've wasted your time typing.

Reply Parent Score: 2