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 542984
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Comment by ilovebeer
by TM99 on Tue 20th Nov 2012 03:22 UTC 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