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 542920
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 13:53 UTC 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

RE[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WereCatf on Sun 18th Nov 2012 16:31 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Hm, you're both kind of right and wrong. There are indeed various laws and regulations governing advertising, including falsified data, misleading claims and hiding of information, and there are plenty of judgments on these things. There was this case about Apple advertising iPad as 4G-capable in Australia, for example, whereas in reality the 4G-functionality worked only if you traveled to the US; since the 4G-feature didn't work in Australia this was a rather clear case of misleading customers and Apple got slapped for it. That is to say that you need to take the context into account.

However, I cannot find any detailed judgments about the very topic at hand, ie. handling of advertised and used storage in an electronic device. Since there is no precedent set about this the outcome of this lawsuit is still anyone's guess -- it's not even certain this will go to court at all. The judge will likely look at this with the intentional misleading of end-users in mind, and it's entirely up to the judge to decide whether this case fulfills the requirements for such or not.

Reply Parent Score: 2