PERDUE-RANDOM HOUSE LEGAL FILINGSummary
- 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,
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(numbers refer to paragraphs in filing)
History and Background, 45-70, 88-90
General Plot Similarities, 71-87
- "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
- 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."
Remedies Requested 91-116
Demand for Jury Trial - Page 57.
- 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
- 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
- 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."
Return to Legal Resources Page
Go to Lewis Perdue's Main Home Page, IdeaWorx
Return to Lewis Perdue Home Page
information about Lewis Perdue | Buy Lew's Books! |
Copyright 1981-2004 Lewis Perdue, All Rights Reserved