I plan to read Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code as soon as one my friends can remember where he last put it. (No hurry, Steve. I already have too many titles on my bookshelf.) I have read (one of) its rebuttal(s), Cracking DaVinci’s Code: You’ve Read the Fiction, Now Read the Facts, by James L. Garlow and Peter Jones.
Imagine my surprise to read that The DaVinci Code may be a work of plagiarism. Lewis Perdue, author of Da Vinci Legacy and Daughter of God, among many other books, is embroiled in a copyright suit with Dan Brown and Random House, Inc.
You can read about it on Perdue’s web sites or blog.
Looks like Perdue’s taking this one to the court of public opinion.
Comments
4 responses to “The Da Vinci crock?”
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 ) 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.
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/
Lewis, you are one mad dog of a client and I don’t mean that in a bad way. :-D Your lawyer must either love you or hate you; there can be no middle ground.
Random House, on the other hand, I’m sure they just hate you.
I added your blog to my RSS reader list.
Well, my lawyers 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.