The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 2
The second biggest argument in the Random House case contends that similarities (maybe 24%) are due to unprotected "stock" elements or scenes a faire.
The evidence we presented show that stock elements vary from genre to genre. In other words, a stock element in a thriller may likely not be a stock element in a historical novel.
The Random House attorneys had no answer and refused to address my attorney's question of why their legal filings have defined my works and Dan Brown's as thrillers up until they re-defined the books as "historical novels" in their April 22,2005 filings.
This is most likely due to the fact that we had expert testimony that proved much of the elements Random House had defined as stock elements for thrillers were NOT stock indeed.
The evidence we presented show that stock elements vary from genre to genre. In other words, a stock element in a thriller may likely not be a stock element in a historical novel.
The Random House attorneys had no answer and refused to address my attorney's question of why their legal filings have defined my works and Dan Brown's as thrillers up until they re-defined the books as "historical novels" in their April 22,2005 filings.
This is most likely due to the fact that we had expert testimony that proved much of the elements Random House had defined as stock elements for thrillers were NOT stock indeed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home