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 542918
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sun 18th Nov 2012 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

.......No. The device does have 32GB of storage. How that storage is used is something else entirely.

Nope. There is an implication there that is very, very clear and legally it has been proven umpteen times in false advertising cases.

It doesn't matter what percentage of the storage space is used by other devices. That has nothing to do with anything.

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.

Not only that but there is no law stating a 32GB device must be have x% of that 32GB to be advertised as a 32GB device.

Crap. This is false advertising, plain and simple. Look it up.

Cite the exact law(s) that supports your claim. Cite ANY law that supports your claim. Or concede that you are posting nothing more than your own personal opinion and that nothing you've claimed is sourced on actual law.

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.

Microsoft has no obligation to list any bundled software. Common sense says they would want to because coming with Office pre-installed is a plus.

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.

How much of that is used by OS, pre-installed software, etc. is completely irrelevant.

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.

The only thing that should give is these pathetic attempts to cry Microsoft foul and create a problem where none actually exists. You're probably so blinded by your desire to badmouth Microsoft...

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.

Like I said, it's all good until Microsoft does it. Once that happens then OH NO THEY DIDN'T....

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 18th Nov 2012 16:09 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

.......No. The device does have 32GB of storage. How that storage is used is something else entirely.
Nope. There is an implication there that is very, very clear and legally it has been proven umpteen times in false advertising cases.

You keep saying this but have yet to provide one single shred of proof. You haven't cite one single law or one single successful case. Basically you're just blowing smoke and hoping nobody notices that you're not providing any actual facts. The buck stops there, that's why I didn't bother replying to the rest of your smoke/post.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by segedunum on Sun 18th Nov 2012 18:20 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The buck stops there, that's why I didn't bother replying to the rest of your smoke/post.

Because you've had your ass carved out and handed to you on a spoon. Why? Because you cannot argue this out, that's why.

You're desperately asking for a law that says 'Consumers must get x amounts of free bytes' to dig you out of this hole when this is covered under false advertising. For anyone who professes to talk about this subject this is so stupid it isn't even funny.

You advertise 32GB of storage then you give a user 32GB of storage. Th clear message is that is storage for the user otherwise why advertise it? There might be reasonable circumstances under which consumers wouldn't get exactly 32GB (tolerances etc.) but giving users under half that will be argued as completely unreasonable - as I have done here. Seagate and Western Digital were successfully sued for using size units to make their hard drives look bigger. The discrepancy? 5%.

The thread ends here because you can't argue this or respond to anything that's been presented. However, this is exactly what will happen in a court somewhere here.

Reply Parent Score: 2