[mythtv-users] Fwd: Further Notice of Seagate Hard Drive Class Action and Proposed Settlement

[Jeff Walther]

>
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:26:19 -0500
> From: "Michael T. Dean" <mtdean at thirdcontact.com>
> On 03/12/2010 01:02 PM, jedi wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:40:03PM -0500, Michael T. Dean wrote:

>>     Yes. The nerve of using a base 10 number to describe an object
>> commonly described in base 2 limitations.
>
> Common?  Where?  You mean in MS Windows?  Since when did that become the
> official arbiter of unit usage?  Again, MS Windows /is/ wrong!  (Note
> how they're not shown on the list at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix#Software .)
>
>>   Beaurocratic revisionism
>> by non-interested busybodies aren't really the point. Seagate
>> profited from any potential confusion. They could have shown good
>> intent by merely being more explicit in their labeling (as they were
>> evetually forced to).
>>
>
> All hard drives from all vendors have always been sold by base 10
> sizes--at least since I bought my 80MB hard drive back in the early
> 90's.  That's called standardization.
>
> I never--from any label on a Seagate hard drive--got the impression they
> were using some measurement that differed from any other manufacturer's.

And because it is "Common practice in the industry" Seagate really
*should* be shielded from any legal action on this particular point.  I
really don't see how they could lose such a suit in a reasonable court.

Did they actually lose the case or is this a settlement?  It may be
cheaper for them to give away malware backup software than it would be to
argue and win the case in court, and pay the lawyers to go away of course,
which is why they keep doing stuff like this.  Parasites (in this case, in
other cases lawyers serve a useful function).

Jeff Walther