no there were advertised to provide certain functionality to their respective consoles and in one case never delivered and in the other only delived part of what was conveyed to customers...

regardless if we are going by what was said about swaying consumer interest these must apply ( and there are a vast amount of other examples of all companies doing this but i suppose that once its a certain company and not another it becomes an issue ) 

Hence the removal of PSN, not "other OS". PSN is a separate agreement, they can legally close, refrain or ban anyone at any time. That was the point of the judge.

You do realise that I've stated (at least 5 times now) that Sony have EVERY right to control their PSN service as they see fit? So stop talking about online topics, alright? That point has already been argued as moot and redundant. If Sony want to control online hacking, they can do it on their side.

And where does it stop? If restricting the entire group further reduces piracy, where does the restrictions stop? Would you be okay if Sony annoucned tomorrow that they were axing BluRay playback because it was deemed a security risk? Who sets the bar of security vs piracy? Sony? What right do they have to dictate the rules on a piece of hardware I bought?

What if other companies decided to do this? What if you bought a car tomorrow, only to be followed up later saying "Ah ah....you'd better use it the way we tell you, or you're going to jail". I mean, it will stop reckless driving, right? It would reduce accidents, right? Tell me....WHERE.....DOES....IT.....STOP!?

Exactly! Sony have every right to ban you from THEIR service, so this whole crap about sacrificing personal property freedoms for the protection of cheating is pure bullshit.

Companies don't have an obligation to retain specs/release on a product that hasn't been released. That's the difference here. People already invested their money on this system, for a feature that was already there.

Now, I know where you're going with this, and I'll say now, the sensible, LOGICAL person intent on getting a Wii/360 purely for Vitality sensor/Kinect additions would have purchased it......yes you guessed it.....upon RELEASE of said feature. OtherOS was there, it was available, and then it got taken away. Don't you see the difference here?

Hah, I was more than content leaving this topic be. Since people were just reaffirming what I said, including you. That and it's the same old pointless argument that I have heard a couple dozen times "Screw the minority" more or less. But this post was just too funny. "The console that was twice the price of the other consoles at launch had more features, so it's ok if they took some out." Face the facts something that people paid for is gone. It was forcefully taken from them. They were given the choice between playing new games or having their linux. Yes, they were a minority, but they were still paying customers... they were probably the best customers... Geohot had, what, 5 PS3s by the time he finished? Sony ripped people off... the few "geeks" and "nerds" that cared were the ones that had the power to fight back.

And a couple of your facts 
"A decent web browser" hahahaahaha xD. I'll write that one off to a joke 

"Free wifi" Sony did release PS3s without wifi... 

"rechargeable batteries in controllers" Now, correct me if I'm wrong but besides the two controllers that came with my consoles(two different consoles). The three I bought came with rechargeable controllers? Which I promptly threw away... but that's beside the point 

Lets talk strictly game theft then. Lets say Sony makes a perfect PSN that completely stops online cheating. They still lose millions in software theft that they could've used to bring us more content so it still effects the majority.

This is where is stops. Being reasonable.  Sony can defend themselves in the relm of reason. When they do something that stomps your rights come back and bring this point up. They protected themselves they have that RIGHT.  Who has the right to  set the bar? This was a clear cut and dry problem the OtherOS was going to cause problems. Its not about who sets the bar anyone could have seen this threat. Your allowed to protect yourself within the relm of reason

The car thing is funny. Modding console directly led to the breaking in and then pirating of software.  Sony doesnt tell you how to use anything. So thats moot. Again it stops in the relm of reason.

It comes down to this. It doesn't matter who gets burned in the process as long as 1 underused feature stays.

Its not about removing "other OS", its about removing PSN to people who want to keep "other OS". Which like you just said, is rightful. Sony can apply any rules they want for people to access their PSN service, in this case, the removal of "other OS". Read the judge's conclusion once again.

Ahh, but let me ask you this. Do some off-the-shelf games require updates to the firmware AFTER the OtherOS removal branch? If so, you've also effectively disabled the PS3 as a game console, not just PSN..

Like I said on page 3, either the judge missed that point, or nobody have concrete proof of that. Ill give benefit of doubt to the judge :). That being said, if it can be proved that new games have on disc mandatory installation that requires you to remove "other OS" the petitioners should go into appeal. In any case, the issue is being extremely exagerated ;).