is this a joke-thread ?

Yep, that's the thing that will get Sony hung if there is a decent legal challenge to this. If you choose not to install 3.21 you will eventually not be able to play any new games. As playing games is THE core feature of the PS3 then 3.21 basically becomes a compulsory FW update if you want to keep using it as a gaming console capable of playing all future PS3 game titles. No EULA or ToS will stand up to legal test if it presents you with an ultimatum of having to choose between 2 built in functions for which you bought a PS3. If you don't have Linux installed, and can't prove any intention to ever install it your case would be thrown out as spurious. But if you have and use Linux on your PS3 and you also game on PS3 then you have a case to put.

Then there's MAG. This is an online only game. If you are a Linux enthusiast and a MAG fan Sony are saying to you: Choose between MAG and Linux, because you can't have both. So as of tomorrow there is at least one Blu-ray disc game that a PS3 Linux user can't play.

The point with this case, which would not set anything like the precedent people are suggesting regarding indefinite server support for MP games, is that MS shutting dwon XBL support for the original XBox is non-discrimatory. All XB owners are equally affected. Sony's actions are discriminatory against PS3 owners who want to game and use Linux.

3.21 is anything but optional.

Good luck with this I say. These EULAs and ToSs are probably in need of having some legal tests applied to them. The lawfulness of such contracts should be closely examined. I've no doubt that there are numerous unlawful conditions in most of these types of contracts, it's just no one has had much cause to challenge them previously.

I'll be interested to know how it goes.

And it doesn't matter if Sony are doing this to curb to remote possibility of piracy. You don't commit one unlawful activity as an attempt to prevent possible future unlawful activities for which there is no guarantee that such future unlawful activities will come about. If it's unlawful, then it's unlawful and Sony shouldn't be doing it, end of story.

If what Sony are doing is totally lawful then that's also the end of the story, and while some people might be a bit pissed about it that's just too bad for them.

But you can't automatically conclude that Sony is acting lawfully here, the situation isn't that black and white. There is a piece of legislation that seems to apply to this situation which might render 3.21 unlawful in its current form. The correct process is to test the lawfulness of 3.21 against the relevant statute and determine whether Sony can proceed or whether they need to do something to make 3.21 lawful. Adequate and reasonable compensation as proposed in the OP is one way in which 3.21 can be made lawful without having to change anything about 3.21. But to qualify for the compensation you would need to show that you are negatively affected by 3.21 (i.e that you are a PS3 Linux user and an active gamer). There is no court that would enforce across the board compensation to all phat owners.

A court could also find that while 3.21 is unlawful there is no practical way to reasonably compensate those who are negatively affected (i.e. any compensation that could be specifically targetted to affected people would be unreasonable for Sony to do compared to the nature of the "crime", e.g. an unreasonable compensation would be for Sony to give all phat Linux users a second PS3). Then the court could find that the number of people likely to be negatively affected is so small that the level of "harm" does not warrant preventing Sony from proceeding with 3.21.

Maybe so, but with the way European laws and Courts work, we will be way into the next generation before this is sorted out

Ok people that say there is not a case here are wrong. When I brought the machine, it was advertised as a machine that included online gaming and open platform. Both are STILL on there website, I don't need to point out online gaming as a feature but heres the open platform part:
http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
If I lose either one of those things then Sony has broken an EU law which is:

· be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase.

Now EU law overides any companys TOS or EULA, so thats is that argument out the window.
I use linux (Ubuntu) on my PS3, but I'm a fair man. I'll let Sony take it away to keep the PS3 piracy free.
But I want something back, all Fat owners have been robbed otherwise. I paid for this feature, by law you can't take it way.
Now I don't need a good lawer, becuase in the UK we have a thing called Trading Standards (and watchdog) which do these things for you.
If you think what I'm saying is correct and fair, then join my facebook group about it so I can have a few voices behind me before I take it has far as trading Standards.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110549712296723

at the time of purchase your playstation was still working as advertised, and you will still be able to play all the games avaliable at the time of purchase and released up until now AND use the other OS Feature if you choose not to upgrade.

So, what you want is free continued support for a discontinued Product (the Phat) AND compensation for a Feature that is not avaliable any more if you buy a new Playstation (the slim)?

makes sense to me!

Your right for people that already purchase MAG, they could easily ask for a refund. For future games and bluray, I think they leave the door open if problem arise to block different games that werent advertise at first. Like 3D games and bluray, they could block this feature by requesting you remove "otherOS" when updating. But IMO they will never request you remove "otherOS" to play a normal game with the dualshock controller even in 5 years. Now for psmove and 3D I dont know, it wasnt package and advertise with the fat PS3. They may require you to remove "otherOS" to receive those feature and play games related to them. Thats what I think they meant. Sucks anyway!

Then let me explain it to you.

You need Linux to hack the firmware, you won't necessary need it to to mod the console....

By removing Linux Sony can patch the firmware in the future and hackers won't even be able to see what they did to fix the security hole as they won't be able to run the latest firmware and linux at the same time.

If they keep Linux it's going to go back of the usual race of Sony patching in a firmware, a hacker finding a new way around a couple days later and so on..........

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Personally, I have no stake in this as my original PS3 died several months ago and I replaced it with a Slim. However, the legal aspects are interesting. It's hard for me to believe that a large company like Sony didn't consider the legal ramifications and come up with some cover for this action.

how is Sony taking away that feature if you voluntarily download the update?  it is intellectually dishonest to blame Sony for your own actions.  don't download the update, everything that you lose from not doing so is an optional feature that you have no right to without agreeing to the additional terms taht go with them.

except the online function is a function that requires additional components and agreements -- you still have to agree to specific terms to use it and if you don't you choose not to access it.  the option isn't a feature Sony has to provide free of regulations as you are dishonestly attempting to portray it as.  by your logic, I can sue Sony if I don't have an internet connection because the system says I can play online but does not state on the package that I have to provide an additional component to do so  -- my own internet connection. 

online play is clearly provided as an optional feature that requires additional acceptance on your part, and now you want to attempt to claim you have no obligation to accept additional requirements to utilize it.  you haven't thought your position out very thoroughly if that is a vital aspect of your argument.