Anti-Monopoly

[SoylentGreen]

I got a great present for the kids this xmas, A game called anti-monopoly.
Now not only can I mock the capitalist ideal, but I have a board game that gives a fun and educational way of showing the disparity created within capitalism.
Because anti-monopoly uses all those tricks the real life rich capitalist will use to crush any small competitor who tries to compete in their market.
It's a great game and fun to play and I highly recommend it.
Oh! but wait, you might not be able to enjoy this game because this is not only a game but a reflection of real life unfairness of capitalism.
I did some googling and came across some interesting facts about the history of monopoly and the unfair and monopolistic attitude of big business.

Here's the first lie.

1933 MONOPOLY is created by Charles Darrow in Atlantic City. " Actually, Darrow was the front man in the biggest swindle in game history.

The truth is

# A woman invented Monopoly and never got credit for it. # She was used, betrayed, and discarded by Parker Brothers # The game was originally a widely played public domain folk game like chess # How it was played on home-made boards for twenty-five years # That some Atlantic City Quaker teachers turned it into Monopoly® # How it was stolen from the Quakers and the public domain with a fraudulent patent and a vanished copyright # That and why Parker Brothers concocted a bogus Monopoly history which became an American legend # That Monopoly-gate was covered up with a host of tricks including laundering deals, perjury, and subornation of perjury And how all this produced a billion dollars of monopoly profits and not in Monopoly money either.

Here is some more facts

Dr. Ralph Anspach, economics professor and inventor of a board game called Anti-Monopoly, put his product on the market in 1974 with great sales prospects. Parker Brothers and General Mills threatened to sue anyone involved with the sale of Anti-Monopoly for infringement of its trademark of the word Monopoly. Dr. Anspach (a man of relatively modest salary) found himself facing a lawsuit against the 57th largest corporation in America.

Apparently the lawyers for Charles Darrow convinced the courts that the average American would be unable to discern the difference between the two words , anti-monopoly and monopoly, Thus causing confusion in the public about which game they would be purchasing.
So if any of you are experiencing any difficulty do let me know and I will try and color code the words or something so as to high light the difference.

Carl Person, a New York based lawyer, was willing to take on the case on a contingency basis to help Dr. Anspach fight what turned into a ten-year court battle. Twice a lower federal court ruled against Anti-Monopoly and at one point 40,000 Anti-Monopoly games were buried in a Minnesota landfill by court order. Ralph Anspach mortgaged his home to pay the court costs and faced a loss of his home. Then the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a victory in 1984. Ralph Anspach was back in business and l/2 million copies of Anti-Monopoly sold in the same year.

But the game was not over yet, the country's largest toy manufacturer, Hasbro Inc. went on a toy manufacturer's shopping spree and bought Parker Brothers, soon after Ralph Anspach's victory in supreme court. Hasbro Inc. become the new owners of Monopoly and with the purchase of many other board-game producers, Hasbro Inc. gained control of at least 80% of the American board-game market. A deal was signed between two giant toy retailers, Toys 'R' Us and Kmart, and Hasbro. The fine print included an agreement for the two chains not to buy any competing product. Ralph Anspach and Anti-Monopoly suddenly faced serious marketing problems. Ralph Anspach protested to the Federal Trade Commission with no results. He has gone back to court, with a monopolization case pending, Anti-Monopoly Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., Toys 'R' Us and Kmart Corp. Carl Person is again representing Ralph Anspach in court. His complaint charges that the defendant Hasbro, Inc. has been allowed by the Federal Trade Commission to acquire by merger over 80% of the board-game market and has funneled over 50% of that entire U.S. market through the defendants Toys 'R' Us and Kmart. He also claims that Hasbro, Inc. used a variety of anti-competitive practices, including predatory price discrimination, to destroy the network of wholesalers, retailers and independent sales representatives. Small toy manufacturers have to depend on that network to bring products to market. So far, the lower court judge has refused to even let Anspach go to trial, granting summary judgment to the defendants. Ralph Anspach published a book on his experiences and I heartily recommend reading it. It is an amazing story. Ralph Anspach deserves the real credit for unearthing the true history of Monopoly while developing his defense case against the Parker Brothers' infringement suit.

Anti-Monopoly - The Other Monopoly Game

If you would like to follow the sordid history of monopoly then follow the link Monopoly, Monopoly
Part 1: The History of the Monopoly Board Game and Charles Darrow.

It makes for some interesting reading.

[nerdvincent]

How does it play? Each time you win some money and a piece of land it get property of the state?

Not but we all know that capitalism failed. Let move to something better, kids.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Now not only can I mock the capitalist ideal, but I have a board game that gives a fun and educational way of showing the disparity created within capitalism....

Ok, I'll bite. I'm having a bit of trouble connecting your dots. Are you saying, because the history of Monopoly has been altered, this is due to evil of capitalism? It just sounds like Darrow had created his own version of "The Landlord Game".

About the evil of capitalism: I was once creating a footbal trading game, and was sent a cease and desist order by the NFL. I guess you can't use real teams, logos, players, without "expressed written consent" [screenshot]. In one sense, I understand the reasoning behind getting permission. On the other hand, getting the rights to use those names costs millions of dollars.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Compugasm Ok, I'll bite. I'm having a bit of trouble connecting your dots. Are you saying, because the history of Monopoly has been altered by "interested parties" that this is due to evil of capitalism? Meaning, as this couldn't have possibly occured anywhere else than capitalism? That sounds like a silly claim to make.

No, you are missing the point.
The altering of the history to suite the needs is only one of the many tricks used in this case.
It is not "due to evil of capitalism", but is the inevitable consequence of the capitalist ideology that big business will try by whatever means possible to crush competition. This includes lying, cheating and using large amounts of cash to influence the courts and monopolising the market.


Now I find this an interesting similarity between the two replies.

nerdvincentEach time you win some money and a piece of land it get property of the state?

CompugasmMeaning, as this couldn't have possibly occured anywhere else than capitalism? That sounds like a silly claim to make.

Both of you immediately jump to making a comparison between capitalism and another system rather than try to defend capitalism within its own rights.
As if to say all other systems are wrong so therefore capitalism must be right. But without even bothering first to point out why capitalism is right.

So to nerdvincent
No, this is a game about capitalism, not communism.

And to Compugasm
This isn't an argument about comparing where it could possibly occur but about defending where it has occurred. That's if you can defend it of course.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen This isn't an argument about comparing where it could possibly occur but about defending where it has occurred. That's if you can defend it of course.

Oh. Well I'm not sure I'd want to defend it. As I pointed out, the NFL made sure I didn't get any further than just putting together a few webpages. I'm sure similar comparisons to your argument could be made from any industry that controls all the distribution, like the music industry and file sharing.

[SoylentGreen]

What! no more replies?
Goddamn capitalists are just like the cops. Never one around when you need one.

[Jack]

I'm not enough of an expert in economics to make an intelligent comment on capitalism, but I will say that I found the history of all the behind-the-scenes goings-on to be interesting. It's a good reminder that often things are not as they appear.

[Compugasm]

In 1993, Vanna White won a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics over their use of a humorous ad featuring a robot turning letters on a game show. The decision was later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The issue was over the property right to publicity. The court ruled in favor of White's claim of a right to her property of publicity. This case has been widely criticized by property lawyers who cite the dissenting opinion by Judge Kozinski, from the denial of a rehearing en banc, which stated, among other things, that

Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.