The book was first published in 1982 and became a best seller. ("Teabing" is an anagram of "Baigent.") He keeps "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" on his bookshelf and describes it as the most important book of its kind. Brown has never made a secret of his debt to "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." One of his main characters, an effete English historian, is named Sir Leigh Teabing, an explicit homage to Messrs. Brown's assertion as to the use made of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail,' and when that use occurred." Brown's and his wife's writings which are effectively in the dock," Justice Smith said, going on to cite the title the plaintiffs' book was published under in the United States, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." "I conclude that her absence is explicable only on the basis that she would not support Mr. "While the litigation is against Random House, it is Mr.
Brown's statement that he and his wife did not begin consulting "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" until he was well into the process of writing "The Da Vinci Code." In a ruling that sometimes veered away from points of law to take on questions of literary criticism and the marketplace for books, Justice Smith was unusually harsh about the failure of Ms. "I'm still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all." "Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit," he said. Brown, whose book has sold more than 40 million copies in hardback and, since being released in paperback 10 days ago, has climbed to the top of the best-seller lists, said he was pleased with the verdict, "not only from a personal standpoint, but also as a novelist."
(The book's third author, Henry Lincoln, did not take part in the suit.) "It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way 'The Da Vinci Code' has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright," Justice Smith wrote in his decision. (which is also their publisher), claiming that "The Da Vinci Code" had stolen the "architecture" of their book - the steps they took to reach their conclusions - and thus was guilty of copyright infringement. Brown and his wife, Blythe, who does much of his research - the earlier book "does not have a central theme as contended by the claimants: it was an artificial creation for the purposes of the litigation working back from 'The Da Vinci Code.' " In fact, Justice Smith said, in a ruling that was at times sharply critical of the plaintiffs - as well as of Mr. Brown had stolen their "central theme" because they could not accurately state what that theme was. Brown had indeed relied on the earlier work, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," in writing a section of "The Da Vinci Code." But he said two of the authors of "Holy Blood," Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, had failed in their effort to prove that Mr. In issuing his opinion, Justice Peter Smith said Mr.
Brown's publisher, Random House, of accusations of copyright infringement. LONDON, April 7 - A High Court judge ruled on Friday that Dan Brown did not steal the idea for his stratospherically successful thriller, "The Da Vinci Code," from an earlier book, and he cleared Mr.