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 542905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Sun 18th Nov 2012 09:28 UTC 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[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Sun 18th Nov 2012 14:27 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

"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.
"

Willful idiocy is all it is. Say something critical of Apple's business practices, and bam, you are anti-Apple. Say something critical of Microsoft, and bam, you are anti-Microsoft.

You are welcome but seriously, Googling "false advertising laws usa" gives the link I provided as the very first hit. Intellectual laziness is a part of this as well.

You made some excellent rebuttals in this thread. Thank you.

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[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Mon 19th Nov 2012 02:48 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

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.

http://www.neowin.net/news/western-digital-buckles-on-capacity-laws...

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/06/07/18/western-digital-pays-up-in...

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/03/seagate-settles-suit-over-...

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/search/lii/false%20advertising

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

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

http://www.lawpublish.com/false-advertising-lanham-act.html

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

Obviously not!
by TM99 on Mon 19th Nov 2012 02:50 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

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


No because you are wrong.
"

http://www.osnews.com/thread?542950

Is that clear enough for you now?

Reply Parent Score: 1