I would...there's no basis.
FUD isn't useful doode...in fact, recent behavior by Adobe indicates the exact opposite. You'll note that due to technical and security issues, the old Photoshop CS2 activation servers had to be taken down. So, what did Adobe do? The made the entire CR2 suite available for users and gave them serial numbers that didn't require activation–knowing full well a whole bunch of people who DID'T have a CS2 license would help themselves to the freebie (and they did).
It would be more useful if you actually kept things in the realm of reality when discussing this topic. Spreading FUD may be fun for you, but it doesn't anybody else any favors...
1. Is that your professional legal opinion? Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof. It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies. It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace. It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving. Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date. If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?
And let's keep in mind that anti-trust suits can be more/less successful based on content depending on which country's laws are being applied. Different countries not only have different requirements, but also different heights for the bar to validate the requirements.e Adobe is an international product. Losing such a case in the EU, Asia, or other large marketplace might or might not give them sufficient reason to standardize/revise their policies.
2. FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Fun? No sir. Reasonable and prudent as a consumer who has observed tech companies take advantage of the public time and again? Yes, it is. Lecturing me on my motivations which you know nothing about: it might be fun for you but it's not doing anyone any favours.
Reality? Seriously? The head in the sand approach doesn't benefit anyone. Adobe isn't innocent of questionable business practices. They've committed, and continue to commit, some surprisingly serious practices which leads me to believe they're not at all past finding a way to shut off activations at some point. Or that the language of our current licenses couldn't already be twisted/argued to this end. And we won't know until they decide to do it and we hear their defence in the courtrooms.
The truth is, money is the most common motivator for poor business behaviour. Many argue that without this motivation we wouldn't have wars. A corporation exists only to enrich their shareholders and when push comes to shove there are very few if any limits they'll stoop to. Only our laws and a vigilant (and I dare say skeptical) public who isn't afraid to ask questions keeps them in check. Perhaps it's more damaging when fanboys of certain corporations try to suppress such questioning.