It's a real book, but it doesn't prove the market is random, nothing does as the efficient market hypothesis is just that, an unproven hypothesis lacking even enough evidence to become a working theory.
That certain funds consistently beat the market year in and year out for decades is enough to disprove the notion that markets are random; they're not.
Are you saying the above won't happen?
When so many people are playing, there's bound to be some that consistently win, just by chance alone. The book discusses this.
That markets are random is a hypothesis only; one lacking sufficient evidence to declare it a theory.
No one has proven markets are random and that's where the burden of proof lies.
Besides, even that is "only" a one in a million chance. How many people trade on the stock market?
By the way, which funds have beaten the market for decades?
edit: heh, snap.
Jim Simmons doesn't agree, see Renaissance Technologies as an example. And time would week out lucky winners; luck isn't consistent over long time periods and this is just one example.