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?
Thread beginning with comment 542902
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 18th Nov 2012 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

No, ...it doesn't. The device DOES have 32GB of storage. Part of it is used by the OS. Just like every other device.
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.

I hate to burst the bubble of the non-sensical arguments you people are making but there have been umpteen legal precedents for this in many, many countries. It's as old as advertising itself.

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Sun 18th Nov 2012 09:28 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Christ on a pogo stick, fanboys can be so willfully stupid it hurts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#Manipulation_of_meas...

Yes, there are definitely laws in the US regulated by the FTC regarding false advertising. Yes, class action lawsuits have already been settled with regards to the above link concerning hard drive space amounts. So yes, in this case, Microsoft is advertising n amount of space and in actuality there is n/50 for available use. This is false advertising. This lawsuit is valid and will proceed based on the prior precedent. And yes, it will likely be settled out of court with a financial amount paid plus precise changes to the wording in the adverts.

Is this now clear enough for you and Lucas to get?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by 0brad0 on Sun 18th Nov 2012 10:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Christ on a pogo stick, fanboys can be so willfully stupid it hurts.


They're not really fanbois, they're just plain stupid.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sun 18th Nov 2012 13:54 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Is this now clear enough for you and Lucas to get?

No it isn't. Apparently the computer industry is completely different and impervious to any advertising laws whatsoever and when it's pointed out then everyone must be anti-Microsoft.

Thanks for the link by the way. I wasn't going to play the game of having to trawl Google for advertising law precedents that should be common knowledge so the idiots can drag their nonsense out even further.

Edited 2012-11-18 14:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 18th Nov 2012 16:24 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Christ on a pogo stick, fanboys can be so willfully stupid it hurts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#Manipulation_of_meas...

Yes, there are definitely laws in the US regulated by the FTC regarding false advertising. Yes, class action lawsuits have already been settled with regards to the above link concerning hard drive space amounts. So yes, in this case, Microsoft is advertising n amount of space and in actuality there is n/50 for available use. This is false advertising. This lawsuit is valid and will proceed based on the prior precedent. And yes, it will likely be settled out of court with a financial amount paid plus precise changes to the wording in the adverts.

Is this now clear enough for you and Lucas to get?

I ask that real laws and/or real successful cases on this very subject be cited as evidence that anything your little buddy has claimed is true..... And the best you can come up with is a wikipedia link about false advertising? I hope to god you don't expect anyone to take you seriously! If so, that's really really ..really pathetic.

We all know why you cited a wikipedia definition rather than a real law or case. Because there is no real law or case that proves what you/your pal claim. You two are confused about what's in your imagination, and what exists in the real world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by lucas_maximus on Sun 18th Nov 2012 18:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Is this now clear enough for you and Lucas to get?


No because you are wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sun 18th Nov 2012 13:53 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

An awful lot better than that? What I described is false advertising and you can't get away with that. If you don't know that then you really know very, very little - to put it politely.

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.

I'm afraid the precedents are wider than that and they are as I have described. False advertising is false advertising. You don't get away with it because you are selling people gigabytes.

You hate Microsoft, I get it. But, this case is going nowhere and anyone with any common sense knows it.

Just face it sweetheart. This is false advertising. I'm afraid standing in a court of law and telling everyone that they hate Microsoft is not any sort of legal argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 18th Nov 2012 16:18 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

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.
An awful lot better than that? What I described is false advertising and you can't get away with that. If you don't know that then you really know very, very little - to put it politely.

Correction, what you described was a pathetically weak attempt at an analogy.

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.
I'm afraid the precedents are wider than that and they are as I have described. False advertising is false advertising. You don't get away with it because you are selling people gigabytes.

I see. So you claim how there are many laws and cases in many countries that address this very "issue", but you can't cite a single one. That's extremely pitiful - to put it politely.

You hate Microsoft, I get it. But, this case is going nowhere and anyone with any common sense knows it.
Just face it sweetheart. This is false advertising. I'm afraid standing in a court of law and telling everyone that they hate Microsoft is not any sort of legal argument.

If you're going to ramble, at least try to make sense. I guess when someone is on the ropes, they're say anything no matter how dumb it is.

Instead of blabbing and blowing smoke just simply cite all these numerous laws and cases that proves _anything_ you've said. You haven't because you can't, because all these laws and cases don't exist. You backed yourself into a corner and now you're trying to claw and scratch your way out with name-calling and insults. It's ok. Feel embarrassed -- you earned it.

Reply Parent Score: 2