• 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.

Friday, August 12, 2005

The LEGITIMATE Book Synopsis

Last Sunday, I blogged about how unjust and unfair it was for Judge Daniels to copy the inaccurate and distorted Random House synopses of The Da Vinci Code and my own books. The RH descriptions were pushed beyond all reasonable approximations of the truth in an attempt to emphasize the differences, even where they did not factually exist.

I also mentioned that in our filings, we decided to rely upon an independent third party for the synopsis of the Da Vinci Code. We then compared my books to this third party who had no vested interest, no stake in the outcome of the litigation and no reason to create a synopsis but one which was as accurate as possible.

We used that in our filings, but our attempt at being accurate and even-handed counted for naught with this court which, instead, borrowed the inaccurate Random House version mostly word-for-word.

My son William extracted the comparison from our legal papers and prepared a web page which you can look at and make up your own mind.


Blogger dell said...

Expression of ideas, not ideas themselves, are protectable by copyright. Stop whining- your analysis from your expert witness (paid by you and not 'independent') shows similar ideas, not similar expression of ideas.
Be happy that Dan Brown helped you sell more of your own books.

Fri Aug 12, 12:22:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

I won't comment on dell here who is one of those blog anonymice commenters I mentioned.


While much press has focused on the purported marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, Brown makes it clear by the book's end that this is about Sophia, the Great Goddess and the lost feminine and scriptural revisionism in Christianity."

Where did this come from? He doesn't make this clear at all from my reading of DVC. Magdalene and Jesus are the story and protecting that legacy.

Fri Aug 12, 12:48:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Fri Aug 12, 02:55:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...


That's from Brown's statements Dan Brown challenges the Notion That Mary Married Jesus is REALLY What DV Code is about"cited in this earlier blog post

Fri Aug 12, 03:00:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Dell: I agree about the expression part. If you'll read the filings, you'll see clearly that expression is what my claim was about.

And it may surprise you to know that Olsson did his analysis for FREE because he was so offended by what he found.

So, your charge that he was writing as paid is false.

I do not have the sort of money (unlike Random House) to pay for this sort of thing.

Fri Aug 12, 03:05:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

"He also states that "the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record" (p. 245)."

There's no evidence of this so Brown just filled in this blank for effect. It worked.

I don't understand that sentence about Mary. Who is he talking about? Mary and Joseph? That sounds like a misquote to me. I don't get it.

Fri Aug 12, 03:36:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

You see this Lew?


Mon Aug 15, 05:52:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

very interesting!

Mon Aug 15, 09:35:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Christian said...

Well due to this lawsuit a lot of people have now read both books. Reading the readers reviews on I don't get the impression that the people who think one is a copy of the other is very high. Yes, a lot of similarities since both books steal a lot of gnostic sources, but few 'independent common people' seem to feel they are reading two versions of the same book.

Thu Aug 18, 04:43:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

That would be one pool of readers.

Thu Aug 18, 06:05:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Christian: The Amazon reviews are hardly a good source. Indeed, Amazon investigated soe of the posts a year or so ago and found that more than half had come from a single IP address -- meaning that the same person had used many different user names to flame me and the book.

There are others still up on the site and seems to have becoe a focus of Dan Brown devotees to exact some measure of revenge against me.

Look, there is CLEARLY A DIFFERENCE of opinion about whether infringement has taken place.

THAT is what a trial is for.

If Random House has truth on its side, why is it so terrified of a trial?

Why will Dan brown not submit an affidavit under oath testifying that he did not plagiarize me? I submitted an affidavit under oath and it's not a hard thing to do ... just so long as you tell the truth.

So, why no trial? What have RH and DB got to fear if they are telling the truth?

Thu Aug 18, 08:11:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

Indeed Amazon reviews are a poor source of an author's work value. "Facts are stubborn things," according to John Adams and so the verification of the illegitimacy of a number of reviews further detracts from the relevance of reader reviews, which according to my research rested at about a negative 9 to begin with. It just sunk further into the cyber ouze.

Thu Aug 18, 06:45:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Yes, as crass as it may seem, the Amazon system of verifying people because they have registered a credit card does cut down on the anonymous BS.

Thu Aug 18, 09:27:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Christian said...

Well for Random House being 'afraid' of the lawsuit. Considering you lost round one in a case you feel its obvious you are right about, I am suprised that you continue to have such faith in the courts ability to provide a correct ruling. Could it be that Random House like so many other, myself included, consider the US legal system more of a lottery currently than a useful arbritration vehicle?
And apart from not trusting the system to provide a 'correct ruling', spending millions on lawyers is probably not something they are very excited about, no matter how just they think their case is. I guess spending your life savings on this court case is not the biggest pleasure of your life either.

And for the affidavit, I guess DB hasn't done one as it would be worthless to do one. I mean if he did do a oathsworn affidavit would you withdraw your claims saying 'sorry old lad, I seem to have misjudged you' or would you instead say 'He acknowledge that there are enough similarities in the books for him to need to make an affidavit under oath to try to remove the doubt about wether there is some unlawful copying. That he felt he needed to go to this step says alot of how strong my case is'.

Sat Aug 20, 07:39:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Yeah, the US court system IS a lot like a lottery. I don't have all that much faith that justice is going to prevail, but I don't have any other alternatives.

As for brown's lack of affidavit: the lawyers had to concede a LOT of legal points to keep him from submitting one. They had to concede that he had access to my books AND they had to withdraw any contentions that he had done the research.

There is more, but he could have put this to rest quickly.

They cannot do that because there are some snakes in the DVCode closet they don't want aired. They cannot afford tp have him in court under oath.

And how do I know the latter? Research for an investigative biography I am writing on brown.

Surf over to writopia, start with the May archives and work toward the present for a taste of this. And that material is child's play.

Sat Aug 20, 08:48:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

I'll be tuned for more of that evidence. The indication of a course is sure there. Of course your books being published previous to DVC and A&D is evidence of no research neccessary on its face. That's not much of a concession really. It's obvious.

Sat Aug 20, 06:41:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home