He copied. He didn't copy. He borrowed language. He didn't steal any ideas.

The Coded Court Case continues (as does our love for alliteration and legal language). The Associated Press reports that the Random House legal team is confident it has adequately rebuffed the allegations of copyright infringement brought by two of the three authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

"The claimants' case is now in tatters," said John Baldwin, representing Random House. ...

"It should also be clear that Mr. Brown did not copy ('The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail') as alleged by the claimants," Baldwin said.

"However, even if Mr. Brown had taken these ideas from (the book), the claimants will still fail. The ideas are of too general a nature to be capable of copyright protection. The claimants' claim relates to ideas at a high level of generality, which copyright does not protect."

Meanwhile, novelist Lewis Perdue (who unsuccessfully sued Brown for plagiarism last year) reports, via a contact in London, that things might not be so rosy for Random House and Brown:

Baigent and Leigh's barrister traced out the connections through Blythe Brown's research documents and frequently got Dan to concede that HBHG was the likely source of a range of phrases and sentences.

There were about a dozen of these over the course of the day. The word alterations in a lot of cases were pretty minor "worthy of the Gestapo or KGB" in HBHG became "worthy of the CIA" in DVC in a description of the Church's Friday 13 hit on the Templars.

Dan Brown tried to say that it was all historical fact, which generally it is, but both Baigent and Leigh's barrister and the judge were not quite accepting that, finding some significance in his use of clearly similar language.

The Judge: "that is a different point ... whether it is history or not, you've taken the language from HBHG."

Yes, your Honor, it certainly appears that way. Closing arguments for the plaintiffs will be made on Monday.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Odd that counsel, this late in the trial, are talking up their side to the press. Most good lawyers, at this point in litigation, don't give a hoot what the press thinks; it's totally irrelevant to what the judge thinks, and even the press has a long enough memory to remind Monday's loser about what he said on Friday. Or do British sollicitors assume that judges read the papers over the weekend, so heck, one more dig a PP's case can't hurt?

[clive]

Just more spin, Ed. If you say it for long enough; heck, it might even come true!

I am not expecting a verdict on Monday. Their will be final statements from both sides then the judge will adjourn for a few weeks to make his decision. Mr. Justice Smith will hit the law books and he will also read (or reread) the two books before coming to a decision. He might give a verdict this side of Easter, otherwise, expect it week commencing 24th April would be my bet.

Btw: these guys are all Barristers, not solicitors. Heck, one or two are even Queen's Counsel (QC); so top of the legal heap this side of the water.

[Lorena]

Many people think this is an opportunity for publicity for the movie rather than a bona fide lawsuit. Didn't the publisher publish both books and isn't it also involved with the production of the movie? This would explain why they are giving information so freely to the press. Lorena