The Monopolists Summary

Monopoly, the cherished 'capitalist' board game, was born not in celebration of greed, but as a warning against economic inequality.

1. Monopoly’s Official Origin Story Shrouds the Truth

The widely circulated tale attributes Monopoly’s creation to Charles Darrow during the Great Depression. According to this account, Darrow designed the game in hardship, finding success after Parker Brothers purchased it, delivering him from poverty. This rags-to-riches story became central to Monopoly's branding.

However, this version is false. Friends introduced Darrow to a game with similar mechanics before he redesigned and commercialized it. Parker Brothers fabricated the story of Darrow's ingenuity to secure a narrative that enhanced its right to control the product. The company took advantage of Darrow’s willingness to cooperate with their narrative to solidify their commercial monopoly over the game.

Parker Brothers leaned heavily on this origin story to protect its ownership of Monopoly. By tying the game to Darrow’s supposed creativity, the company aimed to fend off competitors and position itself as the legitimate and only distributor of Monopoly.

Examples

• Parker Brothers attributed the invention to Charles Darrow in 1933, sidelining prior adaptations.
• Darrow adapted the game he learned from others without crediting any of them.
• The “Darrow origin story” served as a strategic myth to boost Monopoly's public appeal.

2. Monopoly’s True Roots Lie in The Landlord’s Game

Elizabeth Magie created The Landlord’s Game in 1904, framing it as a critique of monopolistic practices. Inspired by Henry George’s idea of a single land tax, the game aimed to demonstrate the harms of monopolies and explore alternative economic systems.

The Landlord’s Game already featured elements familiar to modern Monopoly players, including a “Go To Jail” square, corner railroad stops, and devaluation of players as they ran out of money. It was used both recreationally and educationally, spreading progressive ideas about taxation and wealth-sharing.

Although it didn’t achieve massive success, Magie patented her game and kept improving it over time. Her goal was to promote social awareness rather than profit. Unfortunately, the political undertones of her creation, linked to socialist critiques of capitalism, made it less acceptable to mainstream audiences in her era.

Examples

• Magie drew inspiration from Henry George’s works on fair taxation and economic equity.
• Key gameplay features—like property acquisition and debt—originated in her board layout.
• In 1923, Magie updated her game's patent, yet its full potential remained limited by market demands.

3. The Game Evolved Through Contributions from Local Communities

The Landlord’s Game transcended its original form as players around the U.S. adapted and personalized its workings. Early versions began integrating localized changes like New York or Atlantic City street names, reflecting players’ real-world surroundings.

In Delaware, a group inspired by Henry George’s teachings altered the game to include these changes. By the 1920s, communities across the eastern United States had adapted the game, and some households even referred to it as “Monopoly.” These adaptations personalized the game’s playstyle yet evolved its language and objectives to emphasize dominating resources.

Atlantic City introduced many final revisions: players added custom Chance cards and miniatures, and property prices reflected real local values. These changes collectively steered the gameplay toward the accumulation of wealth and property, contrary to Magie’s original version.

Examples

• Arden, Delaware activists incorporated personalized local themes, reshaping gameplay.
• Player-built modifications included Atlantic City streets like Boardwalk and Marvin Gardens.
• Daniel Layman commercialized an altered version under the name Finance by 1931.

4. Parker Brothers Secured Monopoly’s Ownership Through Questionable Means

To dominate the game market, Parker Brothers aggressively patented Monopoly and ensured competing claims were silenced. Securing rights to Monopoly in 1935, they applied for a patent that closely mirrored The Landlord’s Game, despite its striking resemblance.

The company also silenced those who played roles in the game’s evolution. The creators of Finance were paid off, and earlier board-game proprietors were compensated in exchange for dropping their claims. Parker Brothers tracked down and destroyed versions of Magie’s game to erase its legacy.

Magie was approached with an agreement to produce her original game, but it was quietly discontinued after a brief production stint. As complaints and lawsuits emerged, Parker Brothers leaned heavily on Darrow’s myth to maintain its control over a fragmented history.

Examples

• Parker Brothers obtained both Darrow’s 1933 copyright and a patent in 1935, rapidly approved.
• The company shelled out $10,000 to suppress a competing game developer’s claims.
• They marginally re-released The Landlord’s Game after acquiring rights from Magie.

5. Ralph Anspach’s Fight Against Monopoly’s Values

Economics professor Ralph Anspach introduced Anti-Monopoly in 1973, challenging Monopoly’s emphasis on greedy behavior. Anspach's game rewarded players for breaking oligarchies, reflecting his belief that the original Monopoly contradicted anti-monopoly laws in the U.S.

Anspach produced Anti-Monopoly independently, tapping into public sentiment against monopolistic practices during the OPEC oil crisis. His game sold well, appealing to critiques of concentrated wealth and corporate overreach.

However, Parker Brothers swiftly sued Anspach for alleged copyright and trademark infringement. Determined to find justice, Anspach started researching Monopoly’s history, eventually uncovering hidden facts about its origins, including Magie’s role as the original inventor.

Examples

• Anti-Monopoly replaced "hoarding properties" ideals with collaborative gameplay.
• U.S. legal conflicts surrounding monopolistic industries inspired Anti-Monopoly’s creation.
• Anspach personally gathered evidence, tracing Magie’s overlooked contributions.

6. Monopoly’s Trademark Faced Legal Crisis Over Generic Branding

Anspach skillfully argued that the word “monopoly” had become generic, akin to words like aspirin or zipper. The argument dismantled Parker Brothers’s claims that it held exclusive rights over the name.

Through interviews with Atlantic City families and early users of the game, Anspach uncovered examples of prior naming conventions and multiple versions of pre-Darrow games. He contrasted Parker Brothers' narrow trademark claim with broader usage evidence dating back decades.

While initial court rulings favored Parker Brothers, Anspach’s research showed that the public identified Monopoly by its generic associations rather than a sole brand.

Examples

• Parker Brothers maintained strict litigations defending “Monopoly” as branded.
• Errors from the Atlantic City adaptation revealed copied elements in Darrow’s version.
• Parker Brothers destroyed Anti-Monopoly's inventory after an initial court ruling.

7. Anspach Rejected Out-of-Court Settlements, Facing Losses

Despite being offered large sums and executive-level reigns, Anspach pursued his court case. Parker Brothers's offer of $500,000 was tempting but contrasted his resolve to fight the game giant.

Unfortunately, Anspach’s late-stage adjustments to his legal team weakened his courtroom stance. Initial rulings favored Parker Brothers, ending in confiscation and destruction of Anti-Monopoly.

The cards, however, would subtly turn in Anspach’s favor during appeals processes.

Examples

• Parker Brothers offered Anspach a corporate role in exchange for silence.
• Legal defeat led to ordered destruction of Anti-Monopoly game copies.
• Legal mismanagement weakened Anspach's initial courtroom strategy.

8. Supreme Court Marks a Legislative Turning Point

Anspach’s case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where attitudes shifted. Judges found merit in the assertion that trademarks rely on consumer recognition of brands. Arguments about name specificity helped secure a narrow victory for Anspach.

This decision complicated game copyright laws. Rapid changes reflected brewing disputes over intellectual property extensions across industries.

Yet Parker Brothers’s original historical timeline—pinning Monopoly's genesis on 1935—remains on its site into the 21st century.

Examples

• The Supreme Court reviewed trademark filings based on generic definitions.
• Coke succeeded in protecting branding post-challenges issued internationally.
• 2014 Parker Brothers remained guarded over archival Monopoly narratives.

Takeaways

1. When engaging in intellectual property discussions, identify generic components early to deflect unwarranted ownership claims.
2. Prioritize ethical transparency when contributing to or adapting cultural creations to avoid perpetuating hidden erasure.
3. Social popularity frequently reshapes products unexpectedly—embrace broad networks fostering participatory development.