Jonathan Rayner James, a lawyer for Baigent and Leigh, said the case did not relate to the theft of specific parts of text but to the appropriation of themes and ideas.
?Brown copied from ?The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail? and therefore the publication of the resulting novel is an infringement of my clients? copyright,? he told the court.
James said his case was not an attempt to ?stultify creative endeavor? or claim a monopoly on ideas or historical debate.
But Jonathan Baldwin, representing Random House, said Baigent and Leigh were making ?wild allegations.?
He said they were suggesting that ?Mr. Brown has appropriated not only the numerous parts of a jigsaw puzzle but the organizational way (Baigent and Leigh) put it together.?
I’m really baffled by how this is supposed to stand-up in court, but I haven’t read Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. It seems what happened is that Brown summarized the thesis of HBHG and proposed a counter-thesis within the framework of a fictional story. How is that a copyright violation?