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.
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.
posted by Lewis Perdue at 7:23 AM
4 Comments:
Actually, yes, on your first question.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home