A British court cleared The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown and his publishing house of copyright infringement on Friday, rejecting the claim that the bestselling thriller contained ideas stolen from an earlier book.

Authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued Random House, the publisher for both books, claiming Brown's novel "appropriated the architecture" of their 1982 nonfiction book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

"It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (`Da Vinci Code') has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright," Judge Peter Smith said in his 71-page ruling.

Smith described Baigent as a "poor witness," repeating the words of Baigent's own lawyer in his written closing submissions. The justice also said Leigh wanted to "have a fight over something" while giving evidence, but his testimony did not add anything.

Smith said Brown was a disciplined but passive figure on the witness stand, so dependent on the research of his wife, Blythe, that he couldn't give clear answers about when they first read Holy Blood.

"I do not believe he consciously lied," Smith wrote. "His failure to address these points in my view shows once again that the reality of his research is that it is superficial."

The judge was deeply irritated by the absence of Brown's wife, who stayed at home in New Hampshire during the court proceedings.

Smith dismissed Brown's concerns for her privacy, and suspected she did not want to admit she had read Holy Blood far earlier than her husband had believed.

During his time on the stand, Brown acknowledged he and his wife read Holy Blood for research, but he argued it wasn't crucial for The Da Vinci Code. Brown said he and Blythe also used 38 other books and hundreds of documents in the research.

Smith speculated Baigent and Leigh were jealous of Brown's success, and Smith wondered why they couldn't appreciate the "genuine and handsome recognition of their role" in the novel, which openly acknowledges their book.

Smith didn't believe the lawsuit was a scheme by both sides to make money.

Response after the verdict

"Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit," Brown said in a statement. "I'm still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all."

Brown added he was "eager to get back to writing.''

Under British law, both sides were made aware of the decision ahead of time, so Baigent wasn't surprised at the news of the judge's ruling on Friday.

"I feel a little poorer, I suppose, is my initial reaction," Baigent told CTV Newsnet.

In Toronto for a promotional tour of his new book, Baigent said the legal proceedings were going to be expensive for him. He said he didn't know the costs, which legal experts have said could run up to $1.75 million US, but added he had no choice but to go ahead with it.

Authors 'vindicated'

In their lawsuit, Baigent and Leigh claimed that Brown had "appropriated the architecture" of their 1982 book.

Baigent acknowledged Friday that the suit was a "high risk venture," in that he was taking on a high-profile author and a major publishing firm.

"And it was always a 50/50 chance we would lose," he told CTV. "We've lost, we take the hit and we move on."

Baigent pointed out, however, that the judge agreed that Brown "had actually copied" all the points in Holy Blood that he and Leigh claimed were indeed lifted from their work.

"So to that extent we do feel vindicated."

Writers should feel 'relieved'

Glenn Bloom, a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property and copyright law, explained that while the judge concluded that there was some copying: it was a "copying of ideas."

"And copyright does not protect ideas alone. It just protects the architecture or the expression of the ideas," Bloom told CTV Newsnet.

He said writers should feel "somewhat relieved" as a result of this decision, "because a great deal of literature is dependent upon research and analysis and developing stories based upon thoughts and ideas of others."

Both books explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives.

Although academics and theologians rebuff the theories, Brown's blend of murder, mysticism, code-breaking and art history made his book a blockbuster hit, with 40 million copies sold worldwide since its release in March 2003.

There was speculation that a win by the plaintiffs would have held up the scheduled May 19 film release of The Da Vinci Code movie, starring Tom Hanks, although Sony Pictures said it planned to release the film as scheduled.

Bloom said Judge Smith's ruling is consistent with prior jurisprudence, and "if it had gone the other way, it would have been surprising and could have had some significant consequences for the motion picture."

Baigent conceded under cross examination that it had been an exaggeration to claim that Brown used "all the same historical conjecture" as Holy Blood.

Random House lawyer John Baldwin said while many of the incidents in The Da Vinci Code had been described before, "no one has put them together, and developed and expressed them, in the way Mr. Brown did. That is why he has a best-seller."

Baigent and Leigh have seen a spike in sales for their 24-year-old book. It's selling about 7,000 copies a week in Britain, compared to a few hundred before the case began. Baigent is coming out with a new book, The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History.

With files from The Associated Press