# Flash memory class action lawsuit. Are you in?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [June 3, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248 "2006-06-03T03:20:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/21 "2006-06-03T23:42:23Z")
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> It would be nice if everyone could agree on exactly what a megabyte or a gigabyte should mean, but until that happens the least we should expect is that manufacturers not tell us one thing and then do another.
We did agree on what those sizes were. However, the hard drive manufacturers realized that they could make more money by re-defining it, so here we are. The only reason that they’re able to get away with it is that the prefix giga- usually means exactly 10^9.
---
### Author:  [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)
#### Post date: [June 3, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/22 "2006-06-03T23:57:17Z")
This is asinine, at least as far as the formatting issue goes. Memory storage devices require an index, and that index takes up memory. But it doesn’t mean that the memory doesn’t exist. It’s like buying a two hundred page book and bitching that 5 of those pages are consumed by the table of contents.
---
### Author:  [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/23 "2006-06-04T00:35:53Z")
> [@Finagle](#):
>
> This is asinine, at least as far as the formatting issue goes. Memory storage devices require an index, and that index takes up memory. But it doesn’t mean that the memory doesn’t exist. It’s like buying a two hundred page book and bitching that 5 of those pages are consumed by the table of contents.
Yeah, I rolled my eyes at that one, too.
---
### Author:  [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/24 "2006-06-04T01:02:01Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> My god this is stupid.
>
> I did notice this when I was given a Lexar Jump Drive. I asked **Cleophus** about it. NO DRIVE HAS AS MUCH SPACE AS MARKED. Manufacturers use a different megabyte (metric or something). Just as television screens are always measured diagonally, and the weight of precious metal is always in Troy ounces.
>
> The conventional magnetic platter hard drives in my machine do not have as much space as marked either. It’s just at 80 gig, I haven’t filled them up yet.
>
> **JRDelious** I say again- Troy ounces, used only to weigh precious metal and to make it seem heavier than it is. Diamonds are weighed in carats instead of grams or ounces. The use of megabyte in this case is misleading but not actually false. If I use the same industry term to measue storage space, I get as much as claimed. Lexar and all the others may not be using a the same megabyte as the public, but they use a megabyte that is universal to the industry.Switching to another term would allow manufacturers to invent meaningless terms to claim that their product had more storage than a competitor.
>
> Sony would claim 80 quanta (60 megs). Lexar would claim 90 FSU (60 megs). Comparison shopping would be a pain in the ass.
Except that troy ounces are _heavier_ than normal ounces, and even if troy measurements are different from American customary measurements, they’re defined according to a set standard that everyone understands.
“No drive has as much space as marked” is always something that has seemed unacceptable to me. Unlike your precious metals comparison, the _exact same_ thing is being measured. And there’s no particular reason why the same measurements should be used for gold and fish - it’s not like you purchase them for the same purposes.
The difference here is that _one_ item is being measured two ways - the standard way, and the dishonest way used by media vendors. The fact that this is common doesn’t make it seem particularly acceptable to me at least; even if more technologically-aware consumers know the difference, not everyone does, and I shouldn’t need a calculator to figure out how much _actual_ storage is in my 1 GB flash card.
When your operating system measures it, it uses the standard 1,024 B = 1 KB, 1,024 KB = 1 MB. It _is_ a false claim to sell a device with less than 1 GB of storage as 1 GB, no matter how common it is. Calling this acceptable boggles my mind - why should a business get away with using a sneaky measurement technique to sell less product than claimed?
---
### Author:  [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/25 "2006-06-04T01:31:02Z")
> [@Excalibre](#):
>
> Except that troy ounces are _heavier_ than normal ounces, and even if troy measurements are different from American customary measurements, they’re defined according to a set standard that everyone understands.
Much like megabytes?
> [@](#):
>
> “No drive has as much space as marked” is always something that has seemed unacceptable to me. Unlike your precious metals comparison, the _exact same_ thing is being measured.
Like ounces and ounces?
> [@](#):
>
> And there’s no particular reason why the same measurements should be used for gold and fish - it’s not like you purchase them for the same purposes.
Why not gold and aluminum foil? Gold and wool? Gold and everything else? Why should there be a different measurement for precious metals?
> [@](#):
>
> [When your operating system measures it, it uses the standard 1,024 B = 1 KB, 1,024 KB = 1 MB.
To me, this is the problem. Mega=1000. 1,024 should be something else.
> [@](#):
>
> It _is_ a false claim to sell a device with less than 1 GB of storage as 1 GB, no matter how common it is.
No false claim. Use a megabyte of 1000 bytes, the very definition of mega found in the dictionary, and you get the storage claimed. Or does a nuke deliver 1,024 tons of TNT per megaton? Does the name of the band mean 1,024 people killed?
> [@](#):
>
> Calling this acceptable boggles my mind - why should a business get away with using a sneaky measurement technique to sell less product than claimed?
Name a business that doesn’t. The law protects nearly all of it as ‘sales puffery’. If you want to sue all businesses, we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you think flash memory stands out as particularly heinous, you have yet to convince me.
---
### Author:  [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/26 "2006-06-04T01:43:51Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> No false claim. Use a megabyte of 1000 bytes, the very definition of mega found in the dictionary, and you get the storage claimed.
I think you mean 1,000,000, not 1,000.
Anyway, this doesn’t apply when you—in this case, the defendants—have specifically stated on your website that you define 1 megabyte as 1,048,576 bytes.
How hard is this to understand? It’s not a matter of exactly what a megabyte is; it’s a matter of companies that specifically chose to define a megabyte one way, and then adhered to a different standard in the production of their products. _That_ is the nature of the claim of false and misleading business practices.
They could have chosen either standard; where they fucked up was in claiming to use one, and then actually using another.
---
### Author:  [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/27 "2006-06-04T01:55:54Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Much like megabytes?
There was no confusion about the number of bytes in a megabyte until the hard drive manufacturers re-defined the term.
> [@](#):
>
> To me, this is the problem. Mega=1000. 1,024 should be something else.
I agree, but the term “kilobyte” was coined to mean 1024 bytes a long time ago. The name is unfortunate, but I don’t see what’s to be done about it now. Trying to change the name of 1024 bytes would just confuse way too many people.
---
### Author:  [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/28 "2006-06-04T02:04:07Z")
> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Much like megabytes?
No, exactly _un_like megabytes, if you’d been paying attention.
> [@](#):
>
> Like ounces and ounces?
No, like customary ounces and Troy ounces. Perhaps you’re unaware that traditionally, a great many different measurement systems were used concurrently - the Troy system of weights is just one of those systems. You might as well ask why dry gallons and liquid gallons are different, and why those are different from wine gallons, and why wine gallons aren’t the same as beer and ale gallons.
It’s quite traditional to have different standards for different objects; the reason why this is completely irrelevant to the present discussion is that in this case, _the same_ object is being measured by two different standards.
> [@](#):
>
> Why not gold and aluminum foil? Gold and wool? Gold and everything else? Why should there be a different measurement for precious metals?
Why is a hogshead of wine different from a hogshead of ale? And how many rundlets are there in a tierce? What’s your point?
> [@](#):
>
> To me, this is the problem. Mega=1000. 1,024 should be something else.
Too damn bad. The standard is, and has been for a long time, that the 1,000 factor in metric units is 1,024 when measuring data. 1,000 bytes is a fairly useless measurement given that hard drives are divided up into units of 512 bytes and so forth. The 1,024 factor is far more useful when examining data storage.
> [@](#):
>
> No false claim. Use a megabyte of 1000 bytes, the very definition of mega found in the dictionary, and you get the storage claimed. Or does a nuke deliver 1,024 tons of TNT per megaton? Does the name of the band mean 1,024 people killed?
Because that’s the agreed-upon standard. It was chosen because it was more useful; that is what your operating system measures when it tells you the size of a file or the amount of free space left on your hard drive. And there _is_ a reason that a megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes. Because that’s what’s useful when calculating hard drive space.
> [@](#):
>
> Name a business that doesn’t. The law protects nearly all of it as ‘sales puffery’. If you want to sue all businesses, we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you think flash memory stands out as particularly heinous, you have yet to convince me.
Which doesn’t matter, as the court has already been convinced. If you think this is comparable to the conduct of every other business, then it’s up to you to demonstrate that every other business conducts itself in the same way. So far, you haven’t demonstrated that _any_ other business does this.
I’d be satisfied if they just started labeling their products correctly - giving a few pennies back seems sort of silly to me. But they shouldn’t be allowed to make false claims unchecked.
> [@mhendo](#):
>
> They could have chosen either standard; where they fucked up was in claiming to use one, and then actually using another.
No, they couldn’t have. There is one standard that is used on computers; there is a completely different and artificial standard used in selling storage media. Requiring consumers to convert between “hard drive megabytes” and “real megabytes” is stupid and deceptive. The companies you mention are even _more_ deceptive, it’s true - but companies shouldn’t be able to label their products falsely by using a standard for “megabyte” and “gigabyte” that is not used elsewhere, which in this case they’ve been doing.
---
### Author:  [@Mindfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mindfield)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/29 "2006-06-04T03:43:54Z")
I agree, this is asinine. The industry has define a megabyte as 1,000,000 bytes _forever_. If anything the assumption that a megabyte is 1,024,000 bytes is incorrect. Computers are binary. Binary uses bits – 0s and 1s. One byte is made up of 8 bits. 1,024 of those bytes make up one kilobyte. But wait – _kilo_ is 1,000! Yes, it is, but for the sake of simplicity, some liberty is taken with the definition of _kilo_ because 1,024 is close enough to 1,000 to make it the closest conventional fit. It follows then that the same liberty is taken with subsequent groupings – kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc. The hard disk and flash memory industry, however, are simply taking the definition of mega and giga at face value. Is it a little shady when the _traditional_ definitions as they pertain to computing aren’t being used? Sure it is. But it’s not like this is the first time assumptions have been made that ended up being different in practise. Network bandwidth, in being referred to as “megs” is actually measured in “mega_bits_,” not “mega_bytes_.” The 90s video game industry played the same game when referring to the capacity of the game cartridges (and therefore ostensibly the quality of the game, being so large and all). They would refer to a game as being “8 megs” or “32 megs” without bothering to point out the difference between bits and bytes.
Why is this suddenly any difference?
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2006, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248/30 "2006-06-04T09:12:00Z")
> [@Mindfield](#):
>
> I agree, this is asinine. The industry has define a megabyte as 1,000,000 bytes _forever_. If anything the assumption that a megabyte is 1,024,000 bytes is incorrect. Computers are binary. Binary uses bits – 0s and 1s. One byte is made up of 8 bits. 1,024 of those bytes make up one kilobyte. But wait – _kilo_ is 1,000! Yes, it is, but for the sake of simplicity, some liberty is taken with the definition of _kilo_ because 1,024 is close enough to 1,000 to make it the closest conventional fit. It follows then that the same liberty is taken with subsequent groupings – kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc. The hard disk and flash memory industry, however, are simply taking the definition of mega and giga at face value. Is it a little shady when the _traditional_ definitions as they pertain to computing aren’t being used? Sure it is. But it’s not like this is the first time assumptions have been made that ended up being different in practise. Network bandwidth, in being referred to as “megs” is actually measured in “mega_bits_,” not “mega_bytes_.” The 90s video game industry played the same game when referring to the capacity of the game cartridges (and therefore ostensibly the quality of the game, being so large and all). They would refer to a game as being “8 megs” or “32 megs” without bothering to point out the difference between bits and bytes.
>
> Why is this suddenly any difference?
Because they said on all their sales material that they were calculating based on the 1,024 system.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flash-memory-class-action-lawsuit-are-you-in/359248.md?page=1)