29-03-2009, 08:14 AM
In order to keep Copyright on the game Monopoly Parker Brothers had to lobby for and get the Congress to change the copyright laws.....
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. vs. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. court case 1976–1985
In the mid-1970s, Parker Brothers and its then corporate parent, General Mills, attempted to suppress publication of a game called Anti-Monopoly, designed by San Francisco State University economics professor Ralph Anspach. Anspach began to research the game's history, and argued that the copyrights and trademarks held by Parker Brothers should be nullified, as the game came out of the public domain. Among other things, Anspach discovered the empty 1933 Charles B. Darrow file at the United States Copyright Office, testimony from the Inflation game case that was settled out of court, and letters from Knapp Electric challenging Parker Brothers over Monopoly. As the case went to trial in November 1976, Anspach produced testimony by many involved with the early development of the game, including Catherine and Willard Allphin, Dorothea Raiford and Charles Todd. Willard Allphin attempted to sell a version of the game to Milton Bradley in 1931, and published an article about the game's early history in the UK in 1975.[86] Raiford had helped Ruth Hoskins produce the early Atlantic City games.[87] Even Daniel Layman was interviewed, and Darrow's widow was deposed.[88] The presiding judge, Spencer Williams, originally ruled for Parker Brothers/General Mills in 1977, allowing the Monopoly trademark to stand, and allowing the companies to destroy copies of Anspach's Anti-Monopoly.[89] Anspach appealed.
In 1979, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Professor Anspach, with an opinion that agreed with the facts about the game's history and differed from Parker Brothers' "official" account. The court also upheld a "purchasing motivation" test, nullifying the Monopoly trademark, and returned the case to Judge Williams. Williams heard the case again in 1980, and in 1981 he again held for Parker Brothers.[90] Anspach appealed again, and in November 1981 the appeals court again reversed.[91] The case was then appealed by General Mills/Parker Brothers to the United States Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case in February 1983, and denied a petition for rehearing in April.[92] This allowed the appeals court's decision to stand and further allowed Anspach to resume publication of his game.[93]
With the trademark nullified, Parker Brothers and other firms lobbied the United States Congress and got a revision of the trademark laws. The case was finally settled in 1985, with Monopoly remaining a valid trademark of Parker Brothers, and Anspach assigning the Anti-Monopoly trademark to the company but retaining the ability to use it under license.[94] Anspach received compensation for court costs and the destroyed copies of his game, as well as unspecified damages. He was allowed to resume publication with a legal disclaimer.[95] Anspach later published a book about his research and legal fights with General Mills, Kenner Parker Toys, and Hasbro.
^ Orbanes, Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game, page 121.
^ Orbanes, Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game, page 122.
^ Anspach, The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, pages 104–106 and pages 134–135.
^ Anspach, The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, page 249.
^ Anspach, pages 269–271.
^ Anspach, page 273.
^ Anspach, page 286.
^ Partial scan of the United States Supreme Court decision to not hear the Anti-Monopoly, Inc. vs. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. case.
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. vs. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. court case 1976–1985
In the mid-1970s, Parker Brothers and its then corporate parent, General Mills, attempted to suppress publication of a game called Anti-Monopoly, designed by San Francisco State University economics professor Ralph Anspach. Anspach began to research the game's history, and argued that the copyrights and trademarks held by Parker Brothers should be nullified, as the game came out of the public domain. Among other things, Anspach discovered the empty 1933 Charles B. Darrow file at the United States Copyright Office, testimony from the Inflation game case that was settled out of court, and letters from Knapp Electric challenging Parker Brothers over Monopoly. As the case went to trial in November 1976, Anspach produced testimony by many involved with the early development of the game, including Catherine and Willard Allphin, Dorothea Raiford and Charles Todd. Willard Allphin attempted to sell a version of the game to Milton Bradley in 1931, and published an article about the game's early history in the UK in 1975.[86] Raiford had helped Ruth Hoskins produce the early Atlantic City games.[87] Even Daniel Layman was interviewed, and Darrow's widow was deposed.[88] The presiding judge, Spencer Williams, originally ruled for Parker Brothers/General Mills in 1977, allowing the Monopoly trademark to stand, and allowing the companies to destroy copies of Anspach's Anti-Monopoly.[89] Anspach appealed.
In 1979, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Professor Anspach, with an opinion that agreed with the facts about the game's history and differed from Parker Brothers' "official" account. The court also upheld a "purchasing motivation" test, nullifying the Monopoly trademark, and returned the case to Judge Williams. Williams heard the case again in 1980, and in 1981 he again held for Parker Brothers.[90] Anspach appealed again, and in November 1981 the appeals court again reversed.[91] The case was then appealed by General Mills/Parker Brothers to the United States Supreme Court, which decided not to hear the case in February 1983, and denied a petition for rehearing in April.[92] This allowed the appeals court's decision to stand and further allowed Anspach to resume publication of his game.[93]
With the trademark nullified, Parker Brothers and other firms lobbied the United States Congress and got a revision of the trademark laws. The case was finally settled in 1985, with Monopoly remaining a valid trademark of Parker Brothers, and Anspach assigning the Anti-Monopoly trademark to the company but retaining the ability to use it under license.[94] Anspach received compensation for court costs and the destroyed copies of his game, as well as unspecified damages. He was allowed to resume publication with a legal disclaimer.[95] Anspach later published a book about his research and legal fights with General Mills, Kenner Parker Toys, and Hasbro.
^ Orbanes, Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game, page 121.
^ Orbanes, Monopoly: The World's Most Famous Game, page 122.
^ Anspach, The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, pages 104–106 and pages 134–135.
^ Anspach, The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, page 249.
^ Anspach, pages 269–271.
^ Anspach, page 273.
^ Anspach, page 286.
^ Partial scan of the United States Supreme Court decision to not hear the Anti-Monopoly, Inc. vs. General Mills Fun Group, Inc. case.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
