Either of two versions of the board game Monopoly
produced by Quaker
s, in which creating a monopoly
is not necessarily the goal
In the original Anti-Monopoly, which I played as a child, the board is already controlled by various monopolies; the aim is to break these strangleholds. Curiously, the gameplay is roughly the same: invest resources to control groups of objects, with control of an entire group being more than the sum of its parts. (In this case, controlling a group allows you to break that monopoly and return that sector to a competitive mode.)
A more recent version allows players to take one of two roles as a monopolist or a competitor, with different advantages for either choice.
Isn't this a legal problem? Wouldn't Parker Brothers have something to say about this? Well, yes and no. Monopoly, also known as "The Landlord's Game", was invented several decades before the familiar variant appeared. This didn't stop the trademark holders from filing suit, but the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that "the court's reference to Darrow as the inventor or creator of the game is clearly erroneous", and that the game developed "at some time between 1904 and 1934".