Q. When Is A Thriller NOT a Thriller?
In every one of Random House's filings to date -- except for their April 22, 2005 filing, they have correctly referred to The Da Vinci Code and my works as "thrillers."
As pointed out on page 12 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement (numbers 137 and 151 and), Random House made assertions of what was and was not "typical" in a thriller WITHOUT submitting ANY legally acceptable evidence to corroborate their statements. This practice, which as you can see from looking at the filing, covers nearly every statement they made, violates the rules of evidence.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
Instead of adopting their "from the hip," hearsay tactics, we introduced expert evidence demonstrating that substantial amounts of what Random House said was typical of a thriller, WASN'T typical at all.
So, how did they deal with that? Change the genre!!
If you look pages 16 (line 4) and 17 (line 6) of their April 22, 2005 filing, they have taken to calling these "historical novels."
I suppose that if we introduce evidence that these similarities are not typical of historical novels, Random House will start calling things science fiction. But the similarities STILL won't fit the "typical" mold.
Why do they need to continually resort to these intellectually dishonest tactics?