Seagate Class Action Suit

[Steve]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
Is this another formatted vs. unformatted capacity suit? If so it is not really Seagate's fault that formatting chews up space.

It doesn't. Not that much anyway.

 

[Skacer]

Guys whether you sign the sheet they send you or not doesn't matter. If you don't sign your money just goes to those that do / lawyer's fees. But note this, if you do sign, you will most likely get another sheet of paper asking for information on every purchase. They will probably want something stupid like date of purchase and serial number, something that isn't even worth finding at that point in time.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Exterous
How can they sue if the size assumptions are listed on the box?

God bless America.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: AkumaX
wtf i just got this too

if theyre doing the Gb != gb crap, shouldn't all the hdd manufacturers get sued?

Well that is ~2%, and this claims 7%. I can only assume that they are being dicks and moaning about formatted space. Seagate can just argue that they have no direct impact on the way the OS of your choice formats the space and boom, no case.

You can use a drive raw, if you wish, for example...just not in windows, AFAIK.

Dumb lawsuit anyhow.

That 2.4% only applies if they are measuring the space in kilobytes. Otherwise it compounds. (2.4% difference on the kilobytes, then a 2.4% difference additionally when they compute the megabytes, then another 2.4% difference when they compute the gigabytes.) That means 97.6%^3 or 92.97% is what is actually available for use on a drive. That gives us a difference of a little over 7%. This suit is going nowhere.

ZV

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: AkumaX
wtf i just got this too

if theyre doing the Gb != gb crap, shouldn't all the hdd manufacturers get sued?

Well that is ~2%, and this claims 7%. I can only assume that they are being dicks and moaning about formatted space. Seagate can just argue that they have no direct impact on the way the OS of your choice formats the space and boom, no case.

You can use a drive raw, if you wish, for example...just not in windows, AFAIK.

Dumb lawsuit anyhow.

That 2.4% only applies if they are measuring the space in kilobytes. Otherwise it compounds. (2.4% difference on the kilobytes, then a 2.4% difference additionally when they compute the megabytes, then another 2.4% difference when they compute the gigabytes.) That means 97.6%^3 or 92.97% is what is actually available for use on a drive. That gives us a difference of a little over 7%. This suit is going nowhere.

ZV

Ahh, OK. That was a better explanation. They still have no chance as the calculation of the space on the drive you buy has been made clear on the box for years. Unless they are going for the OEM market which doesn't have a box, which is even dumber.

 

[Captante]

I bought approx 35 Seagate drives pre Jan 1 2006 & I have the receipts all together in one folder ... at 5% I'll be due almost $200 if I decide to follow up on this.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
Heh, just got the notice also. Seagate has always done right by me, I have no complaints. Not going to waste my time with this.

the settlement usually won't be any smaller merely because you don't file a claim. unless this is some sort of unusual settlement you won't be saving seagate any money.


i wonder if the backup and recovery software is the stuff available on seagate's website?

 

[seemingly random]

Lawsuits suck. And yet every once in a while some good inadvertently comes from them.

Apple was sued in the '90s for misrepresenting screen sizes - tube size vs. viewing size. I don't remember anyone talking about a miscarriage of justice.

I would like to see disk drive manufacturers held accountable for accuracy in the definition of KB, MB, GB, etc. The term KB refers to KiloByte which equals 1024. One thousand equals 1000. This has nothing to with formatted capacity.

I think there would be complaints if a 'gallon' of milk contained just 60oz.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I would like to see disk drive manufacturers held accountable for accuracy in the definition of KB, MB, GB, etc. The term KB refers to KiloByte which equals 1024. One thousand equals 1000. This has nothing to with formatted capacity.

I think there would be complaints if a 'gallon' of milk contained just 60oz.

Here's a better analogy. If a container of milk was 128 ounces by volume, and clearly disclosed as such on the container, you are saying that retarded consumers who don't know the difference between ounces by weight and volume would have a legitimate reason to sue because their container of milk doesn't weigh eight pounds (128 / 16)?

The prefix kilo does not mean 1024.

A kilometer is not 1024 meters

A kilogram is not 1024 grams

A kilowatt is not 1024 watts

Hard drive and computer storage manufacturers have been using the 'accurate definition' of KB, MB, and GB since the 1950s.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Pugnax
These things only make the lawyers more money. The ones who really "suffered" (if that is even the case) usually end up with 5 bucks and about 10 wasted hours.

well, it says Seagate may refund 5% of the total amount you paid. In my case, for the 2 250g sata drives I bought 2 years ago for a RAID array (one of which poped-out when I tried to collapse the RAID, it still thinking it is part of a RAID--could be my own idiocy, though) for some $250-300...means about 15 bucks for me.

sounds about right. I wouldn't even bother with something that the entire HDD industry is guilty of anyway.

 

[fustercluck]

I got it also, was thinking it was spam probably but it isn't the typical spam kind of message.

 

[seemingly random]

Good point - $1k = $1000, and so on. And thanks for not slamming on oz/gal - don't know where that came from - 1gal = 2^7oz not 2^6.

I'm not advocating a lawsuit of any kind. A lawsuit is just that - a law for suits.

It's customary in the computer world, at least from a developer's viewpoint, for K = 1024. I expect 2,147,483,648 bytes in 2gb of ram, not 2,000,000,000. But then I don't expect 2^31 hz from a 2ghz cpu. I think it comes down to any quantity measurement in units of bytes that K is assumed to be 1024.

 

[Parasitic]

Thanks to those asshat lawyers hard drive prices are going to go up soon.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I would like to see disk drive manufacturers held accountable for accuracy in the definition of KB, MB, GB, etc. The term KB refers to KiloByte which equals 1024. One thousand equals 1000. This has nothing to with formatted capacity.

I think there would be complaints if a 'gallon' of milk contained just 60oz.

Here's a better analogy. If a container of milk was 128 ounces by volume, and clearly disclosed as such on the container, you are saying that retarded consumers who don't know the difference between ounces by weight and volume would have a legitimate reason to sue because their container of milk doesn't weigh eight pounds (128 / 16)?

The prefix kilo does not mean 1024.

A kilometer is not 1024 meters

A kilogram is not 1024 grams

A kilowatt is not 1024 watts

Hard drive and computer storage manufacturers have been using the 'accurate definition' of KB, MB, and GB since the 1950s.

Meter, gram and watt are all SI units, so you have to use the SI definition of kilo.

The prefix "kilo" was borrowed and modified for use with a non-SI unit, the byte. Because of the way that data is organized and addressed on a disk, the SI definition is more or less useless in the context of bytes.

Because pedantic scientists kept getting their panties in a wad over the misuse of their precious prefixes, someone came up with KiB, MiB, GiB, etc to represent the binary approximations of the SI prefixes. And some people use them - on the Internet. But I have NEVER heard a person actually say "mebibyte" or "gibibyte." And I'd be willing to bet that even the people who come in here with an air of superiority correcting people who use gigabyte "improperly" also use it improperly in every other context except threads like this (which pop up pretty often).

Language is not defined by a dictionary, the dictionary reflects the way people actually use the language. In the context of computer storage, pretty much everyone other than storage manufacturers use the SI prefixes to represent their binary approximations. And the dictionary reflects this. So it's time for scientists and pedants to pull the sticks out of their asses and let us continue to use the prefixes the way that makes most sense in the context of computer storage. And when I actually hear someone say their computer has 2 gibs of RAM, then they can get indignant when I call my gibs gigs.


On the other hand, it's also time for the general public to remove the dunce caps and accept that while storage manufacturers use a less common definition of gigabyte, it is an acceptable definition, and they even clarify it on the damn box!

 

[mugs]

If I bothered to find proof of my hard drive purchases (I buy Seagate almost exclusively), I'd use the money to buy more Seagate hard drives. Great company, great drives, low prices. I :heart: Seagate. I hate opportunistic asshole lawyers.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: mugs
And when I actually hear someone say their computer has 2 gibs of RAM, then they can get indignant when I call my gibs gigs.

:heart:

 

[alkemyst]

No one is debateing kilo = 1000. It's the byte that is the issue.

 

[compuwiz1]

So everyone gets about .22c? LOL :laugh:

The only winners are gonna be the attorneys.

 

[tcsenter]

Language is not defined by a dictionary...

But weights and measures are defined by international convention, treaty, or government chartered organizations, such as IEEE, IEC, ISO, ANSI, and BIPM. And those authorities say kilo, mega, and giga are always 10-base in any context, without exception.

the dictionary reflects the way people actually use the language. In the context of computer storage, pretty much everyone other than storage manufacturers use the SI prefixes to represent their binary approximations.

On the contrary, consider networking, telecom, and computer bus clock and transmission frequencies, data transfer and signaling rates, all of which use SI prefix correctly:

1kbit = 1,000 bits
10Mbit = 10 million bits
100Mbit = 100 million bits
1Gbit = one billion bits

10KHz = 10,000 Hz
100MHz = 100 million Hz
1.0GHz = one billion Hz

So within the entire realm of information technology, the only real-world application for the inaccurate binary approximation is uniquely and singularly digital storage, and only as it applies to the actual presence of formatted data.

What you are saying is that everyone in the world is supposed to define these prefixes as 10-base, except for digital storage manufacturers? Now that is a lawsuit that would have merit. IOW, manufacturers would be sued for using a definition of these prefixes that is at odds with long-established and universally accepted meanings adopted internationally and in common use among the general public without controversy.

That is kinda the definition of misleading or false advertising. As it stands now, these lawsuits have no merit whatsoever, but they would if manufacturers were to define the SI prefixes as 2-base.

From Wikipedia on the relatively recent origins of the binary v. decimal controversy:

The presentation of hard disk drive capacity by an operating system using MB in a binary sense appears no earlier than Macintosh Finder after 1984. Prior to that, on the systems that had a hard disk drive, capacity was presented in decimal digits with no prefix of any sort (e.g., MS/PC DOS CHKDSK command).

 

[aplefka]

I've got several Seagate drives. Without having read the entire article isn't this just an issue with conversions and not so much Seagate's claims?

 

[fleabag]

HA! I've been saying this all a long, arguing on forums about this nonsense and all I ended up getting was hounded on for being wrong. I knew I was right, I mean why measure drive space in decimals when it's calculated always in binary?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Language is not defined by a dictionary...

But weights and measures are defined by international convention, treaty, or government chartered organizations, such as IEEE, IEC, ISO, ANSI, and BIPM. And those authorities say kilo, mega, and giga are always 10-base in any context, without exception.

the dictionary reflects the way people actually use the language. In the context of computer storage, pretty much everyone other than storage manufacturers use the SI prefixes to represent their binary approximations.

On the contrary, consider networking, telecom, and computer bus clock and transmission frequencies, data transfer and signaling rates, all of which use SI prefix correctly:

1kbit = 1,000 bits
10Mbit = 10 million bits
100Mbit = 100 million bits
1Gbit = one billion bits

10KHz = 10,000 Hz
100MHz = 100 million Hz
1.0GHz = one billion Hz

So within the entire realm of information technology, the only real-world application for the inaccurate binary approximation is uniquely and singularly digital storage, and only as it applies to the actual presence of formatted data.

Wow - I specifically said in the context of storage and you're bringing up clock speeds, transmission frequencies, etc? Do you seriously not understand WHY 1000 bits or 1 million bits is a useless quantity in the context of data storage? That is why no one uses the decimal versions for data storage - they are useless quantities. Using the binary equivalents is a lot more practical.

What you are saying is that everyone in the world is supposed to define these prefixes as 10-base, except for digital storage manufacturers? Now that is a lawsuit that would have merit. IOW, manufacturers would be sued for using a definition of these prefixes that is at odds with long-established and universally accepted meanings adopted internationally and in common use among the general public without controversy.

Oh really? How many RAM manufacturers have been sued for using the SI prefixes to represent the binary approximations?

That is kinda the definition of misleading or false advertising. As it stands now, these lawsuits have no merit whatsoever, but they would if manufacturers were to define the SI prefixes as 2-base.

From Wikipedia on the relatively recent origins of the binary v. decimal controversy:

The presentation of hard disk drive capacity by an operating system using MB in a binary sense appears no earlier than Macintosh Finder after 1984. Prior to that, on the systems that had a hard disk drive, capacity was presented in decimal digits with no prefix of any sort (e.g., MS/PC DOS CHKDSK command).

Can you HONESTLY tell me that you never use the SI prefixes to describe the binary approximations? You NEVER say anything to the effect of "my computer has 2 GB/gigs of RAM"? Don't lie, because it wasn't too hard to find you doing just that:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=29&threadid=2106008
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=83&threadid=2107710
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=29&threadid=2090543

Memory is computer storage, and uses the binary approximation for the same reason that disks do. So maybe you should quit being a hypocrite?

 

[SmoochyTX]

I got the email. I'm not going to waste my time on a stupid lawsuit.

 

[Brainonska511]

I took a look at the settlement registration page just to see what it entailed, but nothing that I've bought Seagate-wise would qualify. It specifically states RETAIL drives. Both drives I purchased that were Seagate were OEM, so I don't think they'd qualify.

 

[Howard]

They should be suing Microsoft instead.