Except that Apple owns a monopoly on iPhone application distribution. Just as in the Kodak case where Kodak had a monopoly on parts. In the Wal-Mart case you c

Except that Apple owns a monopoly on iPhone application distribution. Just as in the Kodak case where Kodak had a monopoly on parts. In the Wal-Mart case you can hardly argue that Wal-Mart owns a monopoly on consumer good distribution. The key thing here is that there is no way to get a legitimate application (and web-apps hardly need apply) onto the iPhone without going through the Apple channel. It looks and smells like a monpoly (at least as defined in previous supreme court rulings) to me.