 |
|
| The Harry Reasoner Report: 12/01/1971
|
|
| Thursday, June 08, 2006 |
View the original Harry Reasoner Report
THE REASONER REPORT
AMERICAN INFORMATION RADIO
FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1971
THE MONOPOLY OF MONOPOLY
We had planned to be through discussing games -- Christmas or otherwise -- for the year, but something came up the other day which causes us to rescind our vow. It's the Monopoly people. They're suing somebody for infringing on their copyright. Out in a Portland, Oregon, suburb -- a pleasant place called Gresham, there is a new apartment complex called, of all things, Marvin's Gardens. The company says it had to call this complex something, so they called it Marvin's Gardens. And they called the Recreation Building "Park Place" -- and the swimming pool "The Water Works." And they had these signs around -- "Keep off the grass or go to jail." It does sound a little Monopolistic, doesn't it? Well, the fellow who thought up the campaign called up Business Week magazine and said, in effect, "This campaign was the most successful renting campaign ever conducted. At least in the Portland area."
Well, the Parker Brothers took umbrage at these apartment people using their Monopoly board names, even if the complex did look like a Monopoly board. Which it does. So they sued.
The apartment people said they researched the whole things and found that the Monopoly people only own the name Monopoly -- which shows you where the telephone company stands. "Stuff and nonsense," say the Parker Brothers.
"Oh yea?" say the apartment people. The Monopoly people borrowed all these street names from Atlantic City...as anybody who has ever summered in Atlantic City can attest.
Well, the owners of Marvin's Gardens in Oregon have this lawyer named Byron Coney. And we have a copy of the letter he sent to the Parker Brother's attorney."I am deeply disturbed that your client should take offense. I can assure you that Marvin's Garden Apartments in Gresham, which I have personally inspected, is comparable in every respect to the Marvin Gardens you represent owned by your client...except...as I remember, the Marvin Gardens you represent is not a first class residential district, and the rental income leaves something to be desired. I, myself, have owned your Marvin Gardens many times in the past, and I have always felt it was overpriced...in relationship to the income one could reasonably expect from it. In addition, your Marvin Gardens can be mortgaged only to one half of its value, while the Marvin's Garden Apartments has a loan-to-value ratio of 90%.
"Also, your client's property is squeezed into a tiny space between Atlantic Avenue and Ventor Avenue, and shows evidence of rapidly becoming an urban ghetto as you permit hotels to be built there. The owners of your Marvin Gardens are greedily concerned only with maximizing their returns from the property and never once expressed concern over proper city planning or the ecological effect of so many dwelling units on one lot. Then attorney Coney wraps it up by saying: "I don't believe that any confusion between the two properties is likely to occur, and any attempt by you or your client to force the discontinuance of the name "Marvin's Garden Apartments" will most certainly result in countercharges that your are attempting to enforce a Monopoly."
I'll be back with a closing note after this.
COMMERCIAL
I'm not a lawyer, but two thoughts occur to me. If the Parker Brothers win this suit, won't half of Atlantic City be in violation of the law? And the B and O Railroad sue the Parker Brothers?
I'm Harry Reasoner, ABC News, New York, and this has been the Reasoner Report on American Information Radio.
|
|
|
Byron Coney |
|  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|