Disqus - Latest Comments for Lewis Perdue

Re: ‘Da Vinci Code’ Author Wins Plagiarism Case

Lewis Perdue — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:29:16 -0000

The Da Vinci Code Decision

About this Dan Brown thing: He won a round, but the case is far from over.

The headlines were wrong that the judge has cleared The Da Vinci Code of copyright infringement issues or that the issue has been settled.

Contrary to the headlines, Judge Daniels did not "acquit" Brown, but quite to the contrary, acknowledged that there were many similarities in the setting, plot and characters, in other words the key ideas making up my books. However, in one of those interesting quirks of law, he found that Brown's expression of the ideas was different and, therefore, that in the legal meaning of the word he had not plagiarized. We believe the evidence the Judge improperly excluded from consideration proves that my expression was infringed upon, not merely my ideas.

There has been no trial on the issues. What occurred exploits a quirk in American copyright infringement law whereby all facts and expert witness testimony can be excluded from consideration. This quirk is the "lay reader" test which says that the judgement relies on the gut-level response of an average reader as to whether similarity exists or not.

Ironically, the controversy with Da Vinci Code began with average "lay" readers – strangers who sent me unsolicited emails saying they felt I had been plagiarized. While this is a self-selected population, those who feel I have been plagiarized run approximately 10-to-1 in my favor. This indicates there is a substantial legal question to be addressed.

But NONE of those true, average "lay" readers – many of whom were identified in our legal briefs --counted. Only one reader counted in this case: Judge George Daniels who obviously fell into that 1-in-10 category. Because of that, I did not get a trial. Justice demands that a jury hear the evidence.

The summary judgment process has an admirable goal: to keep frivolous lawsuits from clogging up the courts. However, as my legal team amply demonstrated with expert testimony and hundreds of solid examples of fact and similarity, this legal action is well-founded on fact, raises substantial unresolved issues and deserves a trial.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been clear on the following issues:

(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."

(2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."

(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."

(More details about this as well as the case citation can be accessed at: http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/2005/05/2nd-ci...

Thus, I believe Judge Daniels erred in his decision. In addition, item (3), above, makes it clear that the Judge's decision should not be considered a decision on the merits of whether copyright infringement has taken place.

Furthermore, I have never claimed to have copyrighted a notion, a fact, a plot, a bit of history, an idea or any other nonsense.

This quote from the judge's decision is totally false:

"Perdue alleged that Brown copied the basic premise of Daughter of
God, including notions that history is controlled by victors, not
losers, and the importance of the Roman Emperor Constantine in
requiring a transition from a female- to a male-dominated religion."

Just totally incorrect. Take a look for yourself at the original legal papers (including the expert witness reports) filed with the court, at: http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/ and you'll see that "expression" is what was infringed and what this suit is about.

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:08:46 -0000

Many thanks for mentioning The Da Vinci Crock blog.

Random House and its parent company, Bertelsmann want very much to silence me. They are trying every sleazy tactic to keep this from going to trial.

The Da Vinci Crock Blog (http://davincicrock.blogspot) highlights many clearly documented instances (verified using mostly other filings in the case) where Random House lawyers have deliberately written things falsely to make it appear that I agree with one of their points (when I don't), that I have not contested something (when I have), that I have said something or done something that I have not.

As you'll read on the blog, the Random House actions suggest that, perhaps Dan Brown did not conduct his "extensive" research or actually write The Da Vinci Code.

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:06:15 -0000

Interestingly, one might one conclude that Dan Brown may not have written The Da Vinci Code

Why?

Well, for one thing, Random House would not allow him to file an affidavit to that effect in the copyright infringement case concerning Code's plagiarism of my novels.

My attorneys (http://www.cozen.com) raised these issues in our April 8 legal filings in U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY. An affidavit like that is an easy no-brainer.

Yet, their failure to do so basically means that they are admitting defeat on huge amounts of their previous arguments.

Their filings have basically provided no legal basis to conclude that he did, or did not write The Da Vinci Code, nor that he did or did not do the well-publicized "extensive" research.

Similarly, the failure to file that affidavit means he was not willing, under oath, to state that he never heard of me or my books which were systematically looted for Code.

Why are they keeping Dan Brown from saying those things under oath?

All the legal filings are at: http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/

and the documentation of some ethically borderline tactics by the Random House attorneys at: http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Mon, 02 May 2005 10:10:09 -0000

Well, my lawyers (http://www.cozen.com) seem to find some value in the blog posts.

I've tried to go over the latest Random House filing and to find the contradictions and inaccuracies ... that seems to make a contribution.

I am sure that RH hates me ... but then I'd have to expect that.

Thank you for adding Da Vinci Crock to your RSS ... I think the only way I am going to get a fair hearing is for people to shine a light under the rock.

[blogan: I deleted your two later identical posts. My web hosting service has been extremely flakey recently; I suspect you never received confirmation the comment was received...]

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:48:57 -0000

Yeah, when I hit the "submit comment" report nothing happened.

Then shortly after that, the whole blog was unavailable. So OI came back later and re-posted.

This happens more frequently to most blogs ... which is why I cut and paste stuff into wordpad until it either "takes" or needs another take.

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:51:11 -0000

Yeah, when I hit the "submit comment" report nothing happened.

Then shortly after that, the whole blog was unavailable. So I came back later and re-posted.

This happens more frequently to most blogs ... which is why I cut and paste stuff into wordpad until it either "takes" or needs another take.

Re: The Da Vinci crock?

Lewis Perdue — Tue, 03 May 2005 10:51:34 -0000

DANG!!!!!

It happened again!