• Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Selecting and Arranging Reality

I did not "select and arrange" anything as Random House claims at length beginning on Page 15 of their April 22, 2005 filing. If anyone has selected or arranged anything, it is Random House's fast and loose playing with reality.

Inconveniently for Random House, I have taken the historical and theological study and research I have conducted over the past 30 years and CREATED NEW interpretations (expression) of theology and other matters that are not an arrangement of existing fact, but a new system ... my interpretation, system and expression were what were copied.

If you read a brief description (starting on page 14) of what I created, you will see that I did not take "one fact from column A, one from column B, one from Column C ..." and so on as Random House argues. Instead, I questioned the "what if?" of how history and theology would be different and created an entirely new synthesis, an expression of an idea for the book. This expression, this creation is what was copied in Da Vinci Code.

Random House completely misrepresents the truth of the issue. On Page 13 of their April 22, 2005 filing, they erroneously claim that I am staking my copyright infringement claim on "well-tread terrain," and that I am staking my claim on a "melange of unprotected facts and ideas." The record shows that -- like so much Random House has packed into their April 22 filing -- is absolutely and PROVABLY false.

As my partial bibliography indicates, I have trod a great many miles of history, religion, theology, philosophy, archaeology and more. But rather than regurgitating that as Random House claims, I have used what I have seen on the journey to paint a new picture entirely.

Contrary to Random House's false claims (such as line five, page 14 of their April 22, 2005 filing) where they say I "proclaim a monopoly" over historical facts, I do no such thing and any attempt to say that is either a complete and total misreading of my filing or a deliberate perversion of the truth.

I claim no monopoly or copyright protection for the views along the road. The scenery belongs to all. But my painting of that view is mine alone and THAT belongs to me.


Post a Comment

<< Home