As reported in this BBC story, the court ruled against Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent in their copyright infringement claim made against Dan Brown. Unsurprisingly, the court believes that using ideas from an ostensibly nonfiction historical analysis is not copyright infringement.
Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh argued that Dan Brown copied their book's "central theme".
But the judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, said The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail did not have a central theme in the way its authors suggested.
"It was an artificial creation for the purposes of the litigation working back from the Da Vinci Code," he ruled.
Dan Brown did use the previous book to write certain parts of his thriller, the judge decided, but did not substantially copy their work.
Seen from the outside, it appeared to be a ridiculous case. As kwc noted, the biggest problem was Dan Brown naming his protagonist after Leigh and Baigent. I'd be interested in knowing if he originally meant that to be a kind of tip of the hat to them for providing his inspiration.
Silliest quote of the story:
Mr Leigh told reporters outside the court: "I think by its very nature, this case entailed a conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
"We lost on the letter of the law, I think we won on the spirit of the law, and to that extent we feel vindicated."
Sure thing.