Apple大絕招放出來，直接在跟iPhone OS平台上的開發商約法三章，要求在iPhone OS上開發的軟體都必須使用Apple提供的原生語言，不可以用中介軟體轉譯過來的軟體。
Apple的條款新舊版本如下：
舊：
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs.
新：
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
各大媒體幾乎都已經報導過了，各位不清楚的可以參考華爾街日報的報導：
…The language does not mention Adobe by name, but indicates that any program has to be written to run directly on the iPhone operating system–not for some intermediary layer of translation software. That sort of translation is essentially what Adobe is planning. …
Adobe最近也揚言要提告，告什麼呢？
就整個發展看來，我認為Adobe除非與Apple有正式合作契約在先，否則最有可能提告的依據是：The Sherman Antitrust Act §1 and §2
§1 — Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
§2 — Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
反托拉斯法這部惡法在美國可是威力驚人，很多市場上見怪不怪的競爭行為，都在這部法律之下被用帶著偏見的放大鏡檢視。
各位看一下§2，公司可以罰以1億美元以下罰款，甚至處以10年以下有期徒刑（二者可以同時合併處罰）。
Apple有沒有構成market power或monopoly power？很難說，這得由雙方律師（或是美國司法部、聯邦商業委員會）互相角力「市場的認定」–
藉由決定市場的劃分方式，決定市場的大小，從而決定了power之有無。
有者，則進一步檢視Apple的行為是否構成「反競爭」？或是否「意圖壟斷」？
美國反托拉斯法發展了100多年，什麼叫市場、什麼叫反競爭、什麼叫意圖壟斷，其實都說得不清不楚。多數判決裡，法官不斷使用tautology自說自話，每每閱讀這些判例都只會讓我發火。
例如有個1970年代的滑雪場案例，法官將市場劃分到只有一個山頭大，這山頭有幾家滑雪場？兩家！
一家佔地廣，客人多；另一家佔地比較小客人比較少。
所以前者有壟斷地位，最後也構成了濫用壟斷地位的指控，被罰了很多錢。整個州有幾十幾百家滑雪場，但這個案例裡面法官就是將市場畫在這個山頭。你是被告，你幹不幹？
像Dell在台灣標錯價一案一樣，我再多說一下本案關鍵會在哪裡。
我認為真告起來，Apple律師很可能會引用「品牌內競爭（intra-brands competition）」的概念，來主張平台上的統一行為是有經濟效率的，所以不具備「壟斷意圖（monopolizing intent）」或「反競爭行為（anti-competitive behavior）」。
更詳細法律上的操作就不多談，只是略提一下，我認為Adobe之後很有可能的動作以及Apple可能的反應。當然，Adobe可以不用自己提告，它大可以向美國司法部或商業委員提出檢舉，一如當年網景對微軟提出檢舉是一樣的。
各位等著看好戲吧！等著看美國的官僚系統怎樣把一間有創意有競爭力的公司給消磨殆盡。（假如真的有告的話）
