Dan Brown Wins in London
As I pointed out in an earlier post, I felt that Baigent & Leigh made a weak case based on generalities. The fact that they had written a non-fiction book was the death-blow to their case.
The MSNBC story correctly stated that, "A victory by Baigent and Leigh would have challenged the concept that copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself."
I agree which is why my case is based on lifting my expression. I have consistently said that despite Random House's falsehoods to the contrary.
As the court filings confirm, my work is fiction and my infringement case based on hundreds of concerted, coherent and substantial similarities too numerous and comprehensive to be coincidence.
A trial would reveal this, but Random House is using its multi-billion-dollar resources to game the court system to prevent the facts from being heard by a jury.