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 542982
To view parent comment, click here.
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"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

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.


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

RE[12]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Tue 20th Nov 2012 03:22 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by ilovebeer"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

I never claimed you were a paid shill. I also never claimed to 'hate' Microsoft. In fact, I have been using their products for over 30 years. So it is obvious you really don't read the thread replies to you carefully. That explains quite a bit actually.

You repeatedly ask for what law in the US there was concerning this case. It was given to you, and now you claim you didn't ask for it? Don't be a dick.

You ask for a case that is relevant as precedent. It was given to you, and now you claim it isn't what it is? Do you even read the links? Do you even pay attention to the details of the articles?

As a result of these discrepancies, a user filed a class-action lawsuit (PDF) against Western Digital last year, claiming false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, and fraud. Rather than fight a potentially long and costly legal battle, the company has decided to settle by paying $500,000 in legal expenses and offering free backup and recovery software to roughly a million of its customers.

Seagate Technology has agreed to reimburse 5% of the purchase price to people who bought Seagate hard drives in the United States between March 22, 2001, and December 31, 2005 plus pay up to $1.79 million in plaintiff's attorney fees. The move settles a lawsuit, filed in 2005, of false advertising and unfair business practices which accused the world's largest maker of hard drives of measuring storage without taking into consideration how much can be used and therefore misleading consumers by promising 7% more capacity than the devices are actually able to deliver.

There, I just spoon fed you again the relevant passages on the linked pages you obviously didn't read that absolutely presents real cases of false advertising concerning storage space that were settled. These are therefore relevant to the current lawsuit filed against Microsoft. Period.

This is what happens when unintelligent people such as yourself pretend to be 'smart'. You just keep revealing how idiotic you truly are. You aren't a paid shill. You are too stupid for that job. No, you are just a dumbass who when called on his bullshit bullies others and calls them names.

I know you will retort with further denials, further stupidity, and further bullying. I won't be replying further to you on this. It is a waste of time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Tue 20th Nov 2012 04:29 in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I never claimed you were a paid shill. I also never claimed to 'hate' Microsoft. In fact, I have been using their products for over 30 years.

First, my reply was to both of you, hence why both of you were quoted in it. It's funny that somehow is above your head. Next, nobody said you claimed anything about a shill. Further, nobody said you claimed to hate Microsoft, but you do act like it.

Irrelevant nonsense deleted.
You repeatedly ask for what law in the US there was concerning this case. It was given to you, and now you claim you didn't ask for it?

What the hell are you talking about? First, the stuff you linked is not an example of an actual case regarding this exact "issue". Second, I haven't said anything about `not asking for it`, or whatever. Third, you're making up idiotic nonsense.

Childish name-calling removed.

You ask for a case that is relevant as precedent. It was given to you, and now you claim it isn't what it is? Do you even read the links? Do you even pay attention to the details of the articles?

You have yet to cite anything that addresses the "issue" you and your e-buddy thinks exists. I told you to fetch a ball and you brought me a rock thinking nobody would notice. Funny, and not in a good way.

Irrelevant nonsense deleted.

This is what happens when unintelligent people such as yourself pretend to be 'smart'. You just keep revealing how idiotic you truly are. You aren't a paid shill. You are too stupid for that job. No, you are just a dumbass who when called on his bullshit bullies others and calls them names.

You just did a horrible job of describing me but succeeded tremendously in describing yourself. How dumb do you think people are that they don't notice you point your finger at me for calling people names and in this very post you call me a dick, unintelligent, idiotioc, stupid, dumbass, and bully. Great job kiddo, you did the impossible. You made yourself look like an even bigger ignorant twit than you already did.

I know you will retort with further denials, further stupidity, and further bullying. I won't be replying further to you on this. It is a waste of time.

You are so predictable it's almost saddening. You are exactly as I describe a few replies ago. Behaving like nothing more than a wounded animal, lashing out in a last ditch effort to save yourself total humiliation. But, you had already failed in every way before reaching such a state of desperation. You lost the moment you decided to type your first reply because your own self-confusion of the "issue" has prevented you from coming even remotely close to saying anything relevant, interesting, vaguely true, or even worth reading. RIP buddy, better luck next time.

Edited 2012-11-20 04:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ichi on Tue 20th Nov 2012 12:27 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

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.


Not sure about now, but some years ago Microsoft was a customer of the Arbuthnot Entertaiment Group, which hired people to do exactly that.

Shill programs are not a tinfoil hat theory, they are just part of the marketing business.

Edited 2012-11-20 12:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Lorin on Tue 20th Nov 2012 21:21 in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

They certainly do, that was one issue the judge in the Oracle V Google case demanded, a list of people who was paid by each company to post information online.

Reply Parent Score: 2