PERDUE-RANDOM HOUSE LEGAL FILING

WHO, WHAT:

• Response to Random House's Sept. 17, 2004 request for Declaratory Judgment (self-extracting file, double-click to view), DAN BROWN and RANDOM HOUSE, INC. v LEWIS PERDUE
  

 and

• Counterclaims for Copyright Infringement, LEWIS PERDUE v. DAN BROWN, RANDOM HOUSE, INC.,  COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC., SONY PICTURES RELEASING CORPORATION, IMAGINE FILMS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
  
  

WHERE:

• U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

WHEN:  

• December 20, 2004

REPRESENTATION:

• FISCHBEIN• BADILLO• WAGNER• HARDING, LLP
  

Excerpts
(numbers refer to paragraphs in filing)

History and Background, 45-70, 88-90

• "57. After publication of Code, in or about the Spring of 2003, Defendant began receiving unsolicited emails and other communications from readers calling his attention to similarities between his books and Code."
  
• Samples of communications in paragraph 90.
• "91. The foregoing makes clear that after reading Defendant’s Works and Code, objective members of the reading public believed that Code was substantially similar to Defendant’s Works in virtually every substantive and significant way."
  
• "64. Thus, in response to his request for information and a person to talk to, Plaintiffs threatened Defendant with the wrath of Random House (the largest publisher in the United States) and its parent company, Bertelsmann, (the largest publisher in the world), stating clearly that Defendant would be faced with claims for substantial sums in legal fees should he seek to pursue his rights any further."
• 65. "With the threat delivered by Random House and its counsel, all communication between the parties was effectively cut off before it began."
• 66. "Thereafter, in an effort to determine, among other things, how the reading public viewed the similarities between Code, Legacy, and Daughter, Defendant created an online forum, posted the correspondence to Ms. Trager referred to above, and requested readers’ opinions and thoughts."
  
• 67. "At no time up to this time had Defendant publicly accused Brown of plagiarism."
  
• 69. "In or about December of 2003, after Defendant had provided the forensic linguist with copies of all of the books in question, the forensic linguist concluded that Brown had “no doubt” plagiarized Defendant’s Works."
• 
  
  

General Plot Similarities, 71-87

• See also: Olsson Report (previously posted on this web site)
  

Remedies Requested 91-116

• 97.  "... [E]njoining any further publication, distribution, or sale of Code.  Defendant is also entitled to have all existing copies of Code (in whatever form or format) seized and destroyed."
• 98. "... [R]ecover from the Plaintiffs the damages, including attorneys fees, he sustained and will sustain, and any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by the Plaintiffs as a result of Plaintiffs’ acts of infringement.  At present, the amount of such damages is unknown to Defendant, but believed to be in excess of $150 Million Dollars."
• 116. "... [A] [preliminary and] permanent injunction, enjoining Plaintiffs, ACDs, and any other person or entity from casting, producing, financing, filming, releasing, publishing, or otherwise disseminating any motion picture, or similar or related work or product or project based, in whole or in part, on Defendant’s Works."

Demand for Jury Trial - Page 57.