Perdue Perplexed, Part 4 - The Dog That Didn't Bark
Sometimes the most important things are those that are not there. Such as an affidavit from Dan Brown attesting that he conducted the "extensive research" he claims and that he actually wrote The Da Vinci Code.
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">
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">
posted by Lewis Perdue at 10:02 AM
3 Comments:
I'm still marveling at Robert Langdon bailing out out of a plane over Rome in A&D with, get this, a tarp, and parasailing into the Tiber. And lived. That's not even remotely believable.
No experts? Can they do that? Did he research the book? It seems necessary doesn't it even if he only read what others had written on the subject. He certainly read the Holy Blood nonfiction book to anagram the name of the character Tebing.
That's the thing Lew, and it's identical to my possible future case in this aspect. Where did he do the research and from what? I document a history of providing it to the office where he eventually worked. Unfortunately in novels one doesn't have to say. As to the parchment error, wouldn't it be necessary to create this, blindly, in order for it to work with the vinegar in the concocted cryptex? Would linen work? I don't think so chemically.
Just trying to look into the stumbling blocks here as there are many.
The problem with law is that one can concoct a motion to suppress evidence based on unrelated points of procedure. I just did an assignment on this. It's bizarre really in a quest for truth. The idea is to win on a technicality if you can.
On a housekeeping note there's a wild line of code in that post from Lee's blog and it's forced your gutter profile to the bottom. Shorten the line and it will return to normal.
Thanks!
I'll look for that wild code.
Yeah it's the long line that crosses over into the right lane so to speak. I read the response. This is a tough motion for summary judgment. In this light damn near everything is unprotected scenes a faire. I think you DO have some actual scenes and "interplay between chracters" that will stand up to the definition in law and that a good judge will find so. The waiting room is one of those.
I think that the use of disparaging language duch as "he harps" is less than professional. So will the judge. OK if experts aren't needed by law, and they aren't it appears, then the testimony of the readers will indeed carry some weight.
The idea is to keep the ideals high as to not hamper futher expression on similar subjects. For me the ultimate thing here is the idea of Jesus and Mary M marrying and have children. To actally spell that out. For most folks that's the the original element that separates the two books.
Everything else according to stare decisis is common history. I predict a partial settlement based on the best examples of copied scenes but I'm only a green beginning student of law. Judges are subjective but it always boils down to prior decisions for the mostpart. It's deliberately tough to prove and like most things here in the US errs on the side of freedom or claims to.
Post a Comment
<< Home