PLEASE READ THESE FACTS FIRST:

  • Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.


Thursday, April 28, 2005

Abstract Is For Art; Concrete Paves My Plagiarism Case

After several pages of incorrectly accusing my filings of being nothing but "abstractions," the April 22, 2005 Random House filing says about me, "He never takes on concrete plot and character comparisons .... "

They repeat this numerous times such as on page 8 where they write, "...abstract concepts cannot substitute for an analysis of the actual work."

I couldn't agree more. I suppose they need their memories refreshed concerning the 33 pages of specific and oh-so-concrete plot and character similarities analyzed starting on page 14 of my Complaint and Counterclaim of January 6, 2005.

I suppose it would also have been also convenient for Random House to forget about the plot similarities as analyzed in John Olsson's declaration and expanded upon in these charts.

Look for yourself and decide whether or not Random House has reflected reality in their statements.

I've pointed out some of their tactics before in this filing where they have seized on something that is NOT true and then repeat it over and over and over like propagandists who believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.

Again this begs two important questions:

(1) If their case is so good, why can't they stick with the facts and the truth?
(2) If we can so clearly verify their falsehoods in all these matters, how trustworthy is ANYTHING they say?

2 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

It works for FOX NEWS.

Thu Apr 28, 11:06:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Ooooooooooooh!

Thu Apr 28, 11:18:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home