Dodge The Issues If Discussing Them Is A Losing Proposition

The Random House attorneys are clever for sure. Rather than grapple with the facts and the systemic infringements, they prefer to misrepresent the facts, or to focus on the ways that DV Code is different from DV Legacy, Linz and Daughter of God.

This is what happens on page five of their April 22, 2005 filing.

Items 1, 5, and 7 are misrepresentations I'll deal with in another post. Items 2, 3 and 4 are typical of the Random House strategy of NOT dealing with similarities, but trying to distract attention to those areas of difference.

This latter strategy overlooks Supreme Court precedent: As Mr. Justice Learned Hand pointed out, "No plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." (Sheldon V. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir), cert. Denied, 298 U.S. 669, 56 S.Ct. 835)

You can find more information about why differences don't count like similarities do at this link. Sorry it's an image, but court filings are .pdf's that are _image_ files which means that you can neither search through them nor cut and paste text.