We Need to Look at ALL of Random House's Claims in Light of The Abundant Verifiable Mistakes in Their Briefs

Random House's April 22, 2005 filing is 25 pages long. But it is so packed with errors, distortions, half-truths and worse that in the six days since it was filed, I've only been able to address little outside the first ten pages!

To be clear here: this blog and the posts are, for the most part NOT about arguing the various points of infringement.

This blog IS about citing the existing, verifiable legal record as filed with the court to reality-, truth- and fact-check the Random House statements against what they have said in the past, or their representations of what my filings have stated in the past.

This allows me to address (and for readers to verify themselves) the clear and provable errors, misrepresentations, and the remarkable things said (no more thrillers, books are historical novels) and unsaid (no affidavit from Dan Brown that he did the "extensive" research or that he wrote The Da Vinci Code).

The reasonable conclusion which a discerning person might draw is that we should look at all of Random Houses claims -- especially those trying to deny infringement -- with the verifiable knowledge of the many, many errors, misrepresentations and other mistakes we can clearly confirm in this one filing alone.

From the review of the Random House filing, 10 or 15 posts today will get me just about to page 12 or 13, but even that will require me to skip over some of the errors.