Introduction
Monopoly is more than just a board game. It's a cultural icon that has sparked countless family arguments, taught generations about money management, and become a staple in homes around the world. But behind this beloved game lies a fascinating and controversial history that few people know.
In "The Monopolists," Mary Pilon uncovers the true story of how Monopoly came to be, challenging the popular myth of its creation and revealing a tale of deception, legal battles, and the fight for credit and control. This book takes readers on a journey through time, exploring the game's origins, its evolution, and the people who played crucial roles in its development and popularization.
The Myth of Monopoly's Creation
For decades, the story of Monopoly's creation has been a heartwarming tale of American ingenuity and perseverance. According to this widely accepted narrative, a man named Charles Darrow invented the game during the Great Depression. Down on his luck and struggling to make ends meet, Darrow supposedly created Monopoly as a way to escape his financial troubles.
The story goes that Darrow initially tried to sell his game idea to companies like Parker Brothers, but was rejected. Undeterred, he decided to produce the game himself. As word spread and the game gained popularity, Parker Brothers reconsidered their decision and eventually bought the rights to Monopoly. Darrow's rags-to-riches story became a testament to the American Dream, with the inventor becoming wealthy thanks to his creativity and determination.
However, this inspiring tale is nothing more than a carefully crafted myth. The truth behind Monopoly's creation is far more complex and involves a cast of characters whose contributions have been largely forgotten or deliberately obscured.
The Real Origins: Elizabeth Magie and The Landlord's Game
To understand the true history of Monopoly, we need to go back to the early 20th century and meet Elizabeth "Lizzie" Magie. In 1904, Magie invented a board game called The Landlord's Game, which bears a striking resemblance to modern-day Monopoly.
Magie's game featured many elements that would be familiar to Monopoly players today:
- A square board with properties around the edges
- A "Go to Jail" space
- Railroad stations on each side of the board
- The use of play money
However, The Landlord's Game had some unique characteristics that set it apart from the Monopoly we know today. Most notably, it was designed to illustrate the economic principles of Henry George, a prominent writer and economist of the time.
George advocated for a single tax system where people would pay fees for the land they used rather than income tax. He believed this approach would create a more equitable society and reduce economic inequality. Magie, a passionate supporter of George's ideas, created The Landlord's Game as an educational tool to demonstrate these concepts.
The game allowed players to choose between two modes of play:
- A competitive mode where players tried to acquire a monopoly of properties
- A cooperative mode where players paid the same fees and shared profits
This dual nature of the game was intended to show the benefits of George's economic theories and the potential pitfalls of unchecked monopolies.
While The Landlord's Game wasn't a massive commercial success, it did gain a following among progressive thinkers and educators. Magie secured a patent for her game in 1904 and updated it in 1923. Despite modest sales, her primary goal wasn't financial gain but rather to spread Henry George's ideas and promote social reform.
The Evolution of Monopoly
As The Landlord's Game circulated, particularly on the east coast of the United States, it began to take on a life of its own. Players started modifying the game to reflect their local realities and preferences. This organic evolution played a crucial role in shaping what would eventually become Monopoly.
One of the first significant modifications occurred in the small town of Arden, Delaware, where a community of Henry George followers added the names of New York streets and neighborhoods to the game board. This localization trend continued as the game spread, with players in different areas customizing the board to feature their own cities and landmarks.
The game's popularity got a boost from Upton Sinclair, the influential social critic and author. Sinclair helped popularize the modified version of The Landlord's Game, particularly along the east coast. It was during this period that people began referring to the game as "Monopoly," reflecting its focus on the dangers of monopolistic practices in society.
The game continued to evolve as it spread. In Atlantic City, players added local street names and neighborhoods to the board, including some of the city's poorest areas. This desire to reflect reality in the game would later become a hallmark of Monopoly, with different editions featuring cities and landmarks from around the world.
In 1931, Daniel Layman made further adjustments to the game, creating his own version called Finance. Layman's innovations included the addition of "chance" cards and miniature houses, inspired by models a friend had brought back from Ukraine. Despite these improvements and Monopoly's growing popularity, Layman struggled to monetize his version of the game and eventually sold the rights for a mere $200.
Parker Brothers and the Monopolization of Monopoly
The story of how Parker Brothers came to own and control Monopoly is a tale of opportunism, legal maneuvering, and calculated deception. In the early 1930s, Parker Brothers was a struggling game company on the brink of collapse. The company's main problem was its inability to prevent competitors from creating similar versions of its popular games, such as Ping Pong.
When Parker Brothers became aware of Monopoly's growing popularity, they saw an opportunity to turn their fortunes around. However, to maintain complete control over the game, they needed to create a narrative that would give them exclusive rights. This is where Charles Darrow enters the story.
Darrow, who had learned to play Monopoly from friends, redesigned the game and secured a copyright for it in 1933. The exact details of this copyright are unclear, as the original documents have been lost. In 1935, Parker Brothers purchased the rights to Monopoly from Darrow and quickly filed for a patent on the game's official rules.
Surprisingly, this patent was accepted in just one month, an unusually short period for such a process. To this day, it remains a mystery why the patent was granted so quickly, especially considering the similarities between Monopoly's rules and those of The Landlord's Game.
With the patent secured, Parker Brothers set out to eliminate any potential challenges to their ownership of Monopoly. They took several steps to cover up the game's true origins:
- Buying the rights to similar games, such as Finance
- Paying other game developers to keep their versions off the market
- Purchasing as many copies as possible of earlier versions of the game from private owners
- Approaching Elizabeth Magie and buying her patent for The Landlord's Game, promising to re-release the original version (which they did, but only briefly)
Parker Brothers also created and promoted the myth of Charles Darrow as the sole inventor of Monopoly during the Great Depression. This rags-to-riches story not only captured the public's imagination but also helped solidify Parker Brothers' claim to the game.
Despite these efforts, some people who had been involved in the game's early development, such as Charles Todd (who had taught Darrow how to play), complained that Parker Brothers and Darrow had "stolen" Monopoly. However, these claims were largely ignored, and Darrow never acknowledged or shared his earnings with those who had introduced him to the game.
The Anti-Monopoly Challenge
For decades, Parker Brothers enjoyed the fruits of their Monopoly empire, with the game becoming their best-selling product. The company's carefully constructed narrative about the game's origins went largely unchallenged until 1973 when an economics professor named Ralph Anspach decided to create an alternative version of the game.
Anspach took issue with the values he believed Monopoly promoted. He felt that the game's objective – to accumulate as much property as possible while bankrupting other players – encouraged selfish and greedy behavior. Moreover, Anspach found it ironic that a game celebrating monopolies was so popular in the United States, where monopolistic practices were illegal.
Inspired by these concerns and the political climate of the 1970s, which included events like the OPEC oil crisis and the Watergate scandal, Anspach developed a game called Anti-Monopoly. In this version, players were encouraged to share resources and break up monopolies rather than create them.
Unable to find a manufacturer willing to produce his game, Anspach decided to self-produce Anti-Monopoly. The game began to gain traction, resonating with a public that was increasingly distrustful of large corporations and concentrated power.
However, Anspach's success was short-lived. Parker Brothers soon sent him a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that he stop producing his game. Anspach attempted to compromise by offering to change the name to "Anti-Monopolism" or "Anti-Monopoli," but Parker Brothers refused to budge. With neither side willing to back down, the stage was set for a legal battle.
The Legal Battle and Uncovering the Truth
As Anspach prepared for his court case against Parker Brothers, he began researching the history of Monopoly. It was during this investigation that he started to uncover the truth about the game's origins and Parker Brothers' efforts to conceal them.
Anspach's breakthrough came when his son discovered a book mentioning that the inventor of Monopoly was a woman named Lizzie Magie. This information led Anspach to dig deeper into the game's history, eventually uncovering evidence that Monopoly had existed long before Parker Brothers and Charles Darrow became involved.
Armed with this knowledge, Anspach developed a legal strategy based on the argument that the term "monopoly" was generic and therefore beyond copyright protection. He likened it to other words that had once been brand names but had entered common usage, such as aspirin, zipper, thermos, and yo-yo.
To build his case, Anspach sought out people who had been involved in the game's early development. He contacted Daniel Layman, the creator of Finance, and families from Atlantic City who had added local street names to their versions of the game. One family even showed Anspach a spelling error they had made on their homemade board, which had been unknowingly copied by Darrow in his version.
Anspach's research eventually led him back to Elizabeth Magie. Although Magie had passed away by this time, Anspach discovered that his Anti-Monopoly game shared many similarities with her original Landlord's Game, particularly in their anti-monopolistic themes and encouragement of cooperation among players.
Despite the mounting evidence Anspach had collected, his legal battle with Parker Brothers was far from over. The game company, now owned by General Mills, had significant resources at its disposal and was determined to protect its lucrative Monopoly franchise.
The Court Case and Its Aftermath
As the legal proceedings began, Parker Brothers attempted to settle the matter out of court. They offered Anspach $500,000 (equivalent to about $2.2 million today) plus damages, as well as a position as a company executive, if he would drop the case and hand over the rights to his game.
Anspach, however, was more concerned with the principle of the matter than financial gain. He believed that no one should be able to copyright a word in common usage and refused the offer, much to the dismay of his lawyer.
The initial trial did not go well for Anspach. The judge overseeing the case seemed to favor big business interests, and Anspach's late change of lawyers (his original attorney quit after Anspach refused Parker Brothers' offer) hurt his case. The court ruled in favor of Parker Brothers, agreeing that the Anti-Monopoly game infringed on their trademark and was illegally capitalizing on Monopoly's success.
As a result of this ruling, Anspach was ordered to hand over all remaining copies of Anti-Monopoly to Parker Brothers for destruction. The company quickly carried out this order, believing they had secured a complete victory.
However, Anspach wasn't ready to give up. He filed an appeal, adopting a new legal strategy. This time, Anspach and his lawyers argued that when people bought Monopoly, they were purchasing it because of its name rather than its brand. To support this claim, they conducted a survey showing that consumers cared more about the name "Monopoly" than whether Parker Brothers produced it.
Initially, the appeals court was not convinced by this argument. But in a surprising turn of events, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to get involved in the case. The highest court in the land sided with Anspach, agreeing that the term "monopoly" was generic and could not be trademarked. Furthermore, they acknowledged that Charles Darrow had not been the original inventor of the game.
This ruling was a significant victory for Anspach, forcing Parker Brothers to pay damages and allow him to sell his Anti-Monopoly game. However, by the time the legal battle was resolved, public interest in Anspach's anti-establishment game had waned. The political mood of the country had shifted from the anti-business sentiment of the mid-1970s to the pro-consumption ethos of the Reagan era.
The Broader Impact and Ongoing Debates
The Supreme Court's decision in the Monopoly case had far-reaching implications beyond just this particular board game. It threatened the trademarks of many big businesses by potentially allowing anyone to challenge a trademark if they could prove that customers cared more about a product's name than its brand.
This ruling alarmed many companies, from Parker Brothers to Procter & Gamble, who fought against its implications. In the years that followed, trademark laws underwent some changes, and the Supreme Court handled numerous trademark cases, sometimes ruling in favor of trademark protection and other times declaring terms to be generic.
For example, words like "elevator" were ruled to be generic terms that could not be trademarked, while others like "Coke" or "Teflon" retained their trademark status. These ongoing legal battles highlight the complex and often contentious nature of intellectual property rights in the modern business world.
Despite the revelations that came to light during Anspach's legal fight, Parker Brothers has continued to downplay or ignore the true history of Monopoly. As recently as 2014, the company's official timeline for Monopoly on its website began in 1935, conveniently omitting the game's earlier origins and evolution.
Moreover, when approached for comment or cooperation during the research for "The Monopolists," Parker Brothers declined to participate and refused to open their archives to the author. This reluctance to acknowledge the full history of Monopoly suggests that the fight over who owns history – and who gets to tell it – is far from over.
The Legacy of Monopoly and Its Hidden History
The story of Monopoly's creation and the subsequent battles over its ownership offer valuable insights into American culture, business practices, and the nature of innovation. Several key themes emerge from this complex narrative:
The collaborative nature of innovation: Monopoly, like many great inventions, wasn't the product of a single person's genius. Instead, it evolved through the contributions of many individuals over time, from Elizabeth Magie's original concept to the modifications made by various players and the refinements introduced by Charles Darrow.
The power of myth in marketing: The false narrative of Charles Darrow inventing Monopoly during the Great Depression proved to be a powerful marketing tool. It resonated with the American Dream and helped cement the game's place in popular culture.
The tension between intellectual property rights and the public domain: The legal battles over Monopoly highlight the ongoing struggle to balance the rights of creators and companies with the broader public interest in access to ideas and cultural artifacts.
The role of games in reflecting and shaping society: From Magie's original intent to educate people about economic theories to the modern debates about the values Monopoly promotes, the game has always been more than just entertainment. It serves as a mirror to society and a tool for discussing complex economic and social issues.
The challenges of uncovering hidden histories: The efforts to suppress and obscure the true origins of Monopoly demonstrate how powerful interests can shape historical narratives. It took decades of research and legal battles to bring the full story to light.
Conclusion
"The Monopolists" reveals that the history of America's favorite board game is as complex, competitive, and sometimes ruthless as the game itself. From its origins as a tool for teaching progressive economic theories to its transformation into a capitalist icon, Monopoly's journey reflects broader changes in American society and business practices.
The book serves as a reminder that the stories we tell about our cultural touchstones are often simplified or sanitized versions of a more complicated reality. It challenges readers to look beyond accepted narratives and consider the hidden histories that shape our world.
Moreover, the ongoing debates about Monopoly's ownership and the values it promotes demonstrate that the game continues to be relevant as a focal point for discussions about economics, fairness, and the nature of success in capitalist societies.
As we roll the dice and move our tokens around the Monopoly board, we're not just playing a game – we're engaging with a piece of American history that's far richer and more contentious than most players realize. The true story of Monopoly, with its twists and turns, legal battles, and competing claims, is a testament to the enduring power of ideas and the complex interplay between creativity, commerce, and culture.
In the end, "The Monopolists" invites us to reconsider not just the history of a board game, but also our understanding of innovation, intellectual property, and the stories we tell about ourselves and our society. It reminds us that even the most familiar cultural artifacts can have surprising and enlightening histories – if we're willing to dig beneath the surface and question what we think we know.