• 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.
  • NO expert testimony was allowed despite three international plagiarism experts who were willing to testif that it existed.
  • 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.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

More Independent Support

I've been approached by a judicial reform advocacy foundation in Washington D.C. which sees my case as a cause worth supporting. Talks are ongoing.

Regardless of whether this group gets actively involved or not, what this means is that -- regardless of what happens with my issues with Brown and Random House and Sony -- the lack of a trial is spawning a whole new enegetic group of people who smell a rat and have the motivation, means, reputation and resources to carry on independently.

The longer that Random House and Sony prevent these issues from coming to trial, the more of this is going to develop.

Again, the key is that once they are involved, they're yet another independent group I cannot control which has its own beef with this case. Regardless of whether I am dead, gone, ruined, settle or whatever, they continue.

Their involvement -- along with the many ordinary readers who have written me to say they see plagrarism -- also demonstrates that we have a clear controversy of fact here that requires a trial to settle.

Random House and Sony may have the megabucks to bury me by gaming the legal process, but the longer that happens, the more groups like this will develop ... and which will continue long after my fight is done.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Steal a Character, Pay the Piper

Interesting story in the New York Times today: "The Strange Case of the Spoofer Captured by a Spoof"

"As a comedian, actor and satirist, Chris Elliott has made a career out of blurring the line between truth and absurdity. As a novelist, he has unintentionally fuzzied things further by falling for an online spoof and incorporating a fictional robot into his book as a historical figure.

"Now, Mr. Elliott finds himself in a comic nightmare, bending over backward to avoid being accused of a comedian's cardinal sin - lifting someone else's joke - and agreeing to a financial settlement with the robot's creator to head off potential litigation."

Read the rest (free registration required)

Here's the issue: the book in question, "The Shroud of the Thwacker," (Miramax Books, Oct. 2005) is a spoof on period mysteries, but it incorporates a supposedly historical character called "Boilerplate."

Unfortunately for Elliott, Boilerplate is a fictional character created by illustrator and graphic novelist Paul Guinan.

Does this sound familiar?

To readers of this blog it should. It's part of the grounds for my beef with Random House and Sony. How many hundreds of similarities must there be between two characters before infringement can be found?

Certainly the HBHG folks will be looking at this one as well.

Brown's Next Book

This post was originally a response to a comment made by Mark. But I've been told it's interesting enough to elevate to its own blog post.

Random House keeps saying that Dan Brown's next book ... which they originally said was due out this year ... is really coming out next year.

Regardles of when it comes out, it will be possible to tell if the next book is actually written by him.

You see, the forensic guys were totally pissed off to have their work insulted and not to have a day in court, that they have been working on their own time doing some very interesting analysis which is headed for scholarly publication.

They have found that -- measured according to a number of metrics including word choice, placement, pacing etc. -- Da Vinci Code is more like Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God than it is to Brown's previous books.

Those results are being vetted for peer review as we speak.

Add that to the procedures and analysis on authorship currently accepted in criminal trials (higher stanhdards than civil trials) and the forensic people will be able to determine whether the next Brown book is written by the same person as Code ... or the previous Brown books.