• 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, August 10, 2005

The Da Vinci Exclusion - Covering Up The Smoking Gun

One of the more curious things about this case is how a Random House brief incorrectly asserted that we had abandoned our claims to infringements in my 1983 book, The Da Vinci Legacy, and how the judge's decision seems to have followed this false lead as well.

Could it be that one of my strongest pieces of evidence -- the repeated factual error -- was an INconvenient pothole on the decision's railroad to exonerating Random House and Dan Brown?

Back on April 24, I blogged about Random House's blatant fabrication that I had abandoned the claim. The judge's decision seems to have gone along with that and fails to address any of those similarities or the smoking gun.

The smoking gun is that Brown copied a factual error. A discussion of the experts and the repeated error can be found at this blog post.

Ignoring the evidence is not justice.


Blogger dell said...

Were you the only one to publish this factual error? Was it a common or uncommon misnomer?

While most americans know the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, did it ever happen? If two authors repeat a mistake is the latter infringing the former? NO.

Fri Aug 12, 12:26:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Actually, yes, on your first question.

Fri Aug 12, 02:49:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

This previous post offers more details.

There is also NO evidence that Brown actually conducted the research. He refused to submit an affidavit testifying that he did the research, that he did NOT plagiarise me or that he actually wrote the book. See this post for more.

Fri Aug 12, 03:15:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

The cherry tree story wasn't true. And since washington lied to my ancestor about money, he was less than truthful should the situation warrant it.

Brown read HBHG at the very least. Is that research? Depends on who you ask.

Sun Aug 28, 04:42:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Given the fact that a LOT of HBHG is fabrication and _not_ history, the stuff that Brown may have lifted then fits the category of expression which is protected.

Sun Aug 28, 06:47:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home