But sony advertised that linux was a feature.....can a company really advertise a product's feature and then take said feature? That is definitely against the law.

What region is this lawsuit coming from anyway?

 Microsoft can, that is the point. you or I as consumer's cannot lay claim to ownership of any part of the software on the machine we just get the use of it. That level of Control is set up that way even before you or I as consumer's get the device. the Software is what run's the Hardware and control of that is very vital to software companies, this is nothing New. Microsoft has a backdoor into every copy of window's , does that mean they would use it, most likely no but it's there.

Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo can change that Software stack if need be for what ever reason they choose. It's Not something they do willy nilly removing function's, if there is a valid reason many time's the companies give full disclosure of why and what they are taking away.

In this case Sony did this in response to A hacker who released his exploit into the wild on the internet.

they did it for security reason's and most likely getting past that very reasonable explination to the judge in court for him to rule in the consumer's favor over "consumer protection law's being broken" is going to be hard

since Sony did not out right remove the function:

you as the consumer can still keep it.

the problem is if future software is made that does require FW higher than 3.15 you can not claim you cannot update your machine to be able to be security compliant and software compliant, because you can still update the machine. if there was no way to do it, say you were forced to update now but you could never update the machine in the future than that would indeed be a problem. but since you still can the judge will most likely view it as such judicial prudence of sony with security of the PS3 to protect consumer's machine's from further hack's as well as they could.

I believe the suit was filed in the USA because it's against Sony Computer Entertainment America. 

they did not remove Linux!

they removed the install "other OS" out of the XMB even in the slim it's not there, but unlike the slim you can still keep it you just have to agree to update!

thus Sony did not outright remove the function from your Machine. but on the same token if you do decide to keep the Install other OS function on the XMB , than security encryption an software compatability will indeed suffer until you update.

Sony did full disclosure to the consumer of this before the update 3.21 to the consumer to decide to install it or not.

thus no deception was taken.

no bait or switch

As much as it sucks that Sony removed the feature I think Sony should be able to add or remove any functionality they like within reason.

I'm not going to argue in this thread, enough of that was done in the other thread. I will say is this, a EULA or TOS is not the end all be all of a contract. Just because something is in there it does not make it enforceable in all countries. Depending on your country you can not contract your self out of your legal rights. Other than that I hope consumers win and sony does not as we do not need to give corporations that power as some you seem to think they already have.

Any half decent lawyer can drive a bus through the "you only lose PSN if you stay at 3.15". The publicity that came out right at the start said that you'd eventually lose the ability to play the latest new release games. As soon as you restrict the principle reason for the PS3 to exist in the first place (play videogames) then you are in the shit and it has nothing to do with access to PSN. Losing the ability to watch BR movies Sony could possibly argue around, but not losing out on access to new games. Yep and making it not possible to play MAG on day 1 of 3.21 release is bad too. No way Sony can reasonably argue that 3.21 is optional with the only loss suffered being access to PSN.

Sony could easily find itself on the back foot on this if the court accepts the argument that as an advertised feature they can't remove Other OS support if it comes with the consequence of losing other essential features.

If Sony can find a way to prevent access to PSN but still allow online FW updates only that bypass 3.21 for the Other OS users (therefore you can still play all new disc based games (other than MAG) and watch BR movies) then the only valid and potentially legally sustainable argument is removed.

the very fact that as pointed out by All three companies they can and they will, if need be, like I said they do not do that just on a whim they do it for a reason, now some may view their choices as redundant or they may not agree with that choice of the company what they do with said software, but as long as there's full disclosure before said action and in this case they are indeed giving the consumer the choice to keep Install other OS function in the XMB on their PS3. Sony disclosed what would happen if you do decide to keep this FW 3.15 on your Machine instead of updating to the new FW. the big point is you can still choose to update at anytime later. since this was completely disclosed to the consumer before hand there is no deception in view. An since this Action taken by Sony was reactionary in protection of Consumer's machines by beefing up it's security. The judge is going to be hard pressed to fault Sony on it's Action's.

http://www.ps3-hacks.com/2010/03/01/otheros-will-not-be-removed-from-non-slim-ps3-models/  

has anyone even remotely considered the fact that the Phat is a discontinued product?