Orin Safier v. Western Digital Corporation

After reading the complaint that was filed, I feel that the plaintiff is a serious prick, and because of that I will have my own little rebuttal.

Yes, the ICE does now want us to use MiB and GiB instead of MB and GB when referring to the base two system (binary). The plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the current system, using SI prefixes, is actually incorrect as it does not follow the SI rules of a strictly base ten system. Therefore, when hard drive manufactures claim that a hard drive holds 200 GB they mean, in accordance to the SI rules, that it equals 200×10^9 bytes, not 200×2^30 bytes which is 200 GiB. Yes the standards should be enforced, but don’t sue hard drive manufactures for adhering to the SI standard instead of the incorrect usage.

In reality, it is every one else’s fault for not changing binary ratings to the MiB/GiB terminology, this includes CDs, RAM and other solid state memories, CPU caches, Video memory, Windows, and just about every other piece of software. The plaintiff incorrectly assumes that the common use of MB and GB are the correct use. This is not true, why do you think DVD media is measured in MB/GB based on the SI standards of a base 10 system? I say that everyone else needs to get their butts in gear, on either adding that all important separating ‘i’ or face lawsuits from idiotic consumers.

Today I wish that I hadn’t thrown away the paper insert to the plastic packaging to my 200 GB (I’m referring to the proper SI use (200×10^9 bytes)) hard drive, which clearly stated on the package that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes on the packaging. This is clearly telling the consumer that they are using the SI standard, not the common and incorrect usage.

Part 56 of the complaint is invalid. Especially since this person is claiming that this problem is only for retail units, not OEM, which carry no such warning since it isn’t printed on the label on the drive cover itself. As for part 57, this is true to an extent since the manufactures to use some slight rounding so that we aren’t buying 200.047001600 GB (base 10) hard drives, which is the case for my drive, and is actually in my favor. And, that invalidates part 58 of the claim, since in my case they understated the size of the drive. I have also invalidated part 60-65, I really could have saved WD’s butt on this one, if only I could find that all-important slip of paper-stock.

My last major point is that it is a hard drive industry standard that they use the SI base 10 units instead of the incorrect binary usage. As-long-as I remember the hard drive industry has always used the correct SI usage for MB/GB, this goes back to 10MB hard drives; so that was way back in the early 90’s, late 80’s. If a consumer doesn’t know this because of their own ignorance, that is their own fault. Also, if they don’t understand this they shouldn’t be purchasing computer storage products anyways. Instead, they should pay someone, who actually possess half a brain, to do it for them. To further rub this in, I have had numerous clients that know the exact same thing as I do about the rated capacities and factor that in. Though, it really doesn’t matter since every manufacturer uses the same rating system, unlike Intel and AMD, so you can compare apples with apples, the exact opposite of what the plaintiff claims.

It looks like WD agrees with me, but it looks like they are settling out of court to get the person to shut up. Though they are admitting to not advertising that they use the proper use of GB and MB on their packaging, which I know they had done when I purchased my drive.

Here is the link: Western Digital’s brief ISO preliminary approval (HTML, Secure Connection)

Here is the link: Plaintiff’s Compalaint (PDF, Secure Connection)

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]