Da Vinci victory for Dan Brown and Random House

A judge has rejected the claim that Dan Brown copied ideas when he wrote the best-selling book The Da Vinci Code.

High Court justice Peter Smith ruled Friday in a London courtroom on the controversial lawsuit.

"Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit. I'm still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all," Brown saidin a statement, adding that he was "eager to get back to writing."

"I'm pleased with today's outcome, not only from a personal standpoint but also as a novelist," he said.

Brown was accused of infringing copyright by two historians who wrote the non-fiction book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had launched a lawsuit against Random House, publisher of The Da Vinci Code.

They claimed Brown had stolen the whole architecture of his novel from their earlier work.

Both books explore the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, they had children and their bloodline survives to this day.

The theory, dismissed by theologians, caught the imagination of millions of readers in Browns fast-paced mystery novel.

"Mr. Brown is a fiction writer. As a device to writing fiction he is perfectly entitled to dress up factual scenarios to give an illusion that supports his fiction," Judge Smith said in reading his judgment.

"He is not (contrary to the complaints of the claimants) going into deep and detailed research for these factual matters. Indeed, as he said in his evidence that would be counterproductive; he wishes to create 'grey' areas, not black and white," he said.

"As he has taken matters at a general and low level of abstraction and he has only taken ideas and facts without any of the architecture (if any) he has done nothing wrong. 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."

Authors and publishers were watching the case closely, because the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, called The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in its most recent illustrated publication, were testing a fundamental principle of copyright.

They had not claimed Brown copied passages from their work; instead, they were trying to retain copyright over their ideas. If the judge had ruled in their favour, it would have set aprecedent.

"A victory for Leigh and Baigent would make it very difficult for novelists, particularly historical novelists," said Fiona Crawley, a copyright expert with law firm Bryan Cave LLP.

"They go to source books to research the history to incorporate into their novel, she said in an interview with Associated Press. It would call into question how they can research a historical novel without being accused of copyright infringement by the historian who has written the key work on that incident in history."

During the trial, Brown testified that he did consult Holy Blood, Holy Grail when writing the book, but said it was just one of many books he used.

The publicity shy author said his wife, Blythe, did much of the preliminary research.

The judgequestioned the absence of Browns wife in the courtroom, saying Brown could not account for the origin of much of his research.

He also criticized Baigents testimony, saying he failed to back his contention that Brown had taken significant parts of his novel from the earlier work.

He ordered the plaintiffs to cover legal costs, believed to be in six figures, for Random House.

In making his ruling, Judge Smith read both books and heard two weeks of esoteric testimony about subjects such as the founding of the Knights Templar and the evolution of the Merovingian dynasty, Jesus supposed bloodline.

The Da Vinci Code has sold 40 million copies around the world and was released in paperback in North Americajust last week. A movie starring Tom Hanks is to be released in May.