I wanted to read up on that, because I’ve never heard it before. And apparently her original patent for landlords game ran out in 1921, and her second patent mostly covered the single tax theory playstyle, which didn’t get incorporated into monopoly, because the new patent couldn’t include things from the old one.
So while they definitely took her game, and mutilated the concept to promote the thing it was advocating against, they didn’t necessarily steal it and abuse the fact that she couldn’t afford to fight back (At least from what I’ve seen, please correct me if I’m wrong)
But if she had had the money for a proper patent lawyer, she could have filed a patent for a sufficiently-changed or better-specified version that would have protected it. Even in cases of patent law, many corporations have managed to hold onto their patents with death grips despite their expiry (Nintendo comes to mind).
I wanted to read up on that, because I’ve never heard it before. And apparently her original patent for landlords game ran out in 1921, and her second patent mostly covered the single tax theory playstyle, which didn’t get incorporated into monopoly, because the new patent couldn’t include things from the old one.
So while they definitely took her game, and mutilated the concept to promote the thing it was advocating against, they didn’t necessarily steal it and abuse the fact that she couldn’t afford to fight back (At least from what I’ve seen, please correct me if I’m wrong)
But if she had had the money for a proper patent lawyer, she could have filed a patent for a sufficiently-changed or better-specified version that would have protected it. Even in cases of patent law, many corporations have managed to hold onto their patents with death grips despite their expiry (Nintendo comes to mind).