http://www.thinq.co.uk/news/2010/4/2...er-os-removal/
Not sure if anyone is following this, basically Sony has patched the PS3 to remove a major piece of functionality that it launched with.. the ability to install and boot to another OS (Linux).
They say it was done to prevent piracy, and that could be legit but it raises the question again of ownership and what ownership means.
If I buy something I expect it to operate and have the features I purchased at least keep operating. Now one could argue that I am not forced to upgrade the firmware; I can stay on an older firmware and maintain the previous functionality but that assumes that a) I am even made aware that that upgrade is going to remove that functionality and b) that I can continue to use the PS3 even if I don't upgrade.
a) you could argue they did since it was in the patch notes, but it's pretty significant so it should have been even more apparent. It's kind of like taking my car in for a recall notice and getting it back and the power locks have been removed because someone had hacked the code and were using a home built remote to unlock cars... fixing the power locks would be the right thing, not just taking them out.
b) of course isn't even true... almost everything you do on the PS3 requires an upgrade. Even if you had never connected your console to a network you'd still have to do firmware upgrades to play the games, so the patches aren't optional, they're required in order to use the product as it was intended.
I hope this goes somewhere but I suspect Sony will settle out of court and each PS3 owner will get a free game or a coupon or something in compensation. I don't think Sony would want this to go to court since a judgment would actually mean something for all these companies that hide behind the EULA to keep control over the stuff they "sell".