But the more important point is what the hell does it matter if it's region locked if it's being ported to all regions to begin with?
The problem that people have is that it may set a precedent for games that aren't released in the US region.
In this specific case, I have no problem with the lock. I can wait the extra time, and I don't have a Japanese PS3. However, there are issues when people in certain countries can end up with incompatible versions. Say a company like Gamestop wants to maximize profits by selling JP hardware and EU software? (Which is exactly the point of said region-lock, but it isn't really fair to expect that the customers will jump through hoops for the sake of corporations' profits.)
As was stated in a press release, the reason for the lock is to maximize profits by preventing the JP players from purchasing the cheaper US version. The problem is that a great many people believe that maximizing profits is not a good reason to implement a lock and as such are voicing their opinion.
As with the argument of precedence, I think that it could go both ways. In this case the backlash against the lock was rather vocal, so other companies might consider avoiding it to avoid bad press. On the other hand, other companies might decide to implement a lock so that they too can maximize profits.
As it stands, companies have no reason to region-lock games that they do not plan on releasing outside of Japan. But they might start doing so anyway "just in case." In which case, Sony is probably going to be the one to profit because of the increased console sales.
I tried (and probably failed) to be as neutral in that post as possible.