Olsson Report "Improper?"
We HAD to do this because the court imposes a 40-page limit on the number of pages that each side can file. We did not "abandon" the claims in Da Vinci Legacy as Random House erroneously claims on page 2, but because of the page limit, had to focus on one book or the other.
So RH took the opportunity to MIS-represent why we did this. And because we still support the similarities between DV Code and DV Legacy, and because Legacy is inextricably bound to Linz and DoG, Olsson's comparison is FAR from improper as RH implies.
Random House should realize that the MASSIVE number of similarities that made it necessary to choose just one book on which to focus our filing, means that there are huge issues that should be decided in a trial.
A trial they are working very hard to deny me.
And never forget, they filed first against me to shut me up. Can't we allow the truth to emerge through the free enterprise of ideas?
Or is that what they fear?