Presenting Fiction as Fact
One substantial reason I was denied a trial at the District Court level, is that Random House presented "faux history" as real history (something that is at issue in the London case as well.) History is not protectible, but fictional expression of history is. Many of the fictional "faux history" aspects of The Da Vinci Code first appeared in my works.
The judge in my case, however, mistook my fictional creations about history as real history and filtered those out those as not protected.
But the Random House lawyers persisted in their response to my appeals brief. On page 17 of their filing, they write,
"The Gnostics were early dissidents from the dominant branch of Christianity and their beliefs were excluded from the New Testament commissioned by Constantine, which bears close relation to the New Testament of today. (A-116,A-378)."
The lawyers are presenting that statement as FACT ... just as it was presented as FACT in The Da Vinci Code.
But either the lawyers don't know their history or they're deliberately presenting the court with fiction as fact -- because that is not history at all.
One of the best sources on just what is a fact is Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code : A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine by professor Bart D. Ehrman. In that work, Ehrman debunks that fictional fact.
Ehrman's discussion of this can be found in a number of places, primarily Chapter Four. One of those is page 81.
The point of this is to offer an example (there are many) of how presenting fiction -- especially stolen fiction -- as fact can be very profitable and (in my case) to make sure that justice is not done.