Perdue Perplexed, Part 4 - The Dog That Didn't Bark
In both their previous filings, Random House has repeatedly cited the extensive research that Dan Brown allegedly conducted for The Da Vinci Code as evidence that he didn't need to plagiarize me.
Take, for example, the bottom of Page two of this filing which says, "The factual foundation to Da Vinci Code -- from which the fictional novel emerges -- is based on extensive interviews and research that Brown had conducted...."
Leaving aside for the moment the 13 or more books detailing extensive and seemingly obvious errors in The Da Vinci Code, such a statement concerning "extensive research" is something that can be bandied about in news releases and other publicity and promotion.
But when it comes to court matters, statements of this sort are hearsay and cannot be accepted as evidence. To make this legally acceptable would require an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting to his authorship and his performance of the research.
This is a key issue because Random House has tried to assert that many, many of the similarities between Code and my work are based on shared historical research and that assumes, without evidence, that Brown actually conducted the research.
With that in mind, this filing of April 8, 2005, states that all of the Random House statements on historical research are without evidentiary basis. Because of the lack of legally acceptable evidence (such as an affidavit from Dan Brown), this filing states clearly that there is no legal evidence to form a valid opinion that Brown did or did not conduct the research, nor that he wrote or did not write The Da Vinci Code.
Oddly enough, while Random House's new filings continue to argue about common historical research, they have dropped their claims of brown's "extensive" research. And they finally argue in footnote 7, page 12 that such a legal confirmation of authorship and research is "not necessary."
Swearing out that sort of affidavit is a no-brainer. So why did this dog not bark? Why is there no affidavit from Dan Brown attesting to authorship and the hyper-promoted "extensive research?"
I am one baffled guy.
Maybe some reader out there can figure out why why Random House didn't just put this issue to rest with a Dan Brown affidavit.
========= RESOURCES ==========
A complete summary of filings can be found at the legal filing and resources page">