Just had to comment on this, because every writer was rivetted to the trial. If the judgment had gone to the plaintiffs, the effect on publishing would have been disatrous. No fiction writer would have dared do any research: what if Bernard Lefkowitz, who wrote OUR GUYS, (a terrific book) had sued me over WINTER AND NIGHT because I attributed rotten behaviors to New Jersey high school football players, which is what his book is about? The amazing thing about this lawsuit was that Dan Brown acknowledged HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, quoted it, mentioned it, attributed ideas he got from it -- and they sued for plagiarism anyway. A win by the plaintiffs would have had a devastaing effect on the accuracy of fiction. What historical fiction could you write? And also on the publication of non-fiction: why would you read it except for amateur interest? Certainly not for research, as a fiction or non-fiction writer: you could get sued. All research for publication would have to be primary-source, or else you'd have to get signed releases from anyone whose book you ever read -- all of whom would demand a percentage, in case what you were writing turned out to be the next DA VINCI CODE.

And this, of course, was why what the plaintiffs were hoping for -- that Random House would settle, paying them a few million to go away -- didn't happen. Random House is in the business of publishing fiction and non-fiction. Any suggestion that this strategy might work, whether a win or a settlement, would wither both of Random House's products on the vine.

Score one for the good guys.