Advertisement

Well, having quickly scanned through those first three links, the one thing that stood out to me is that the judge seems predisposed to be in favor of the SVA book because he found SS/PS difficult to “navigate” himself when he read half of it out loud to his grandchildren years ago, and the unfamiliar names, etc., were stumbling blocks for him. He seems to think the SVA book would help people with the same problem to “understand” the books better. If that is the case, then wouldn’t it be even better to have the true encyclopedia, the Scottish Book, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak? Not a plagiarized copy of the original author’s work?

It may bode ill for Jo that they were unlucky enough to get a judge who must be one of the seven people left in the world not really familiar with her books, and one whose mental capacity was such that he couldn’t handle a few unfamiliar names. I mean really. The average 9 year old has no such problem!

“Well, having quickly scanned through those first three links, the one thing that stood out to me is that the judge seems predisposed to be in favor of the SVA book because he found SS/PS difficult to “navigate” himself when he read half of it out loud to his grandchildren years ago, and the unfamiliar names, etc., were stumbling blocks for him. He seems to think the SVA book would help people with the same problem to “understand” the books better. If that is the case, then wouldn’t it be even better to have the true encyclopedia, the Scottish Book, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak? Not a plagiarized copy of the original author’s work?”

Is the judge serious? If he found PS “difficult to navigate” then how on Earth did he manage to work his way through the lawbooks and finally to become a judge?! I mean no disrespect to the judge at all but to me it sounds a bit ignorant of him …. PS if after all a book millions of children were able to read and “navigate” easily in their first read …

The judge must learn the concept of context. Read the first book from start to finish!!

This is the quote from the Sydney morning Herald (written with the AP):

“As the day wore on, however, he [the judge] seemed fascinated by the subject material, interrupting the lawyers at one point to question the experts himself.

In an exchange with Johnson, Patterson explained that his firsthand experience with the Harry Potter novels was limited.

During a visit by his grandchildren, he read them the first half of the first book in the series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

But, even in that quick read, he said, he found Rowling’s “magical world’’ hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context.

“I found it extremely complex,’’ he said – even more so than the Dickens his own father read to him as a child.

The judge suggested there is genuine worth in a book like Vander Ark’s, even if does nothing more than index the somewhat ridiculous sounding names of Rowling’s characters.”

Scary, eh?

Honestly, guys, if there was one thing I learned durng the trial it’s that the judge was really shrewd. He kept referring to small specific points that happened sometimes a whole day previous that I couldn’t remember or pick out, or think to mention. If he judged this case based on his like or dislike for the series I’d be shocked; let’s give him a little more credit. :) For the record, he did then say his grandchildren had loved the series.

Wow is this judge serious??? He had difficulty reading PS??? I read it alittle bit at a time to my 5 year old and he can still tell me from months ago who was who and what happened. He cant be serious!

Thanks Melissa, I would be incredibly worried if I were WB & Jo. If the judge came across like that. I would be pressing for a vote of no confidence in the judge (if there is such a thing possible)

Wait?! Did the judge REALLY say “I found (Philosopher’s Stone) extremely complex”!? What, did he forget to put on his reading glasses? I don’t mean to sound rude…But come on! My brother’s read them when they were eight…And loved them!

Uh oh…This doesn’t sound too good for J.K. Rowling, I hope she’ll come through and win.

Yeah, Melissa is right; we should wait and see before we bash the judge (even if his comment is odd). Perhaps he was trying to be funny?

Thanks Melissa. But it sounds like his grandchildren can understand more then he can… I’m just sayin’!

Sorry, Melissa! I don’t mean to bash the judge, really. Its just that based on that comment, I found it a bit worrying. Not even so much what it may or not say about his shrewdness, but that he was predisposed to be in favor of SVA’s “book.”

I think anyone trying to make that comparison in a news story is doing so very irresponsibly. The comment came up when talking about how many characters there are in Potter and whether a Lexicon aided better understanding and memory of who is where. That’s when Jeri Johnson re-brought-up Bleak House to the judge and reminded him how many characters are in that story. People calling it an overall comment on the case are flatly deceiving, or taking the simple way out of the thought process that goes into writing one of those stories.

My father is a Harvard Ph.D. who became a college president at age 34 and served in that capacity until he was 72. He’s a brilliant man. One evening some years back, my brother and I were watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and my dad sat down to watch it with us.

He demanded to know why Angel, a vampire, didn’t bite Buffy.

Me: “Well, Dad, he’s a vampire with a soul.”

Later in the same episode, Dad asked why Spike, another vampire, didn’t bite Buffy.

My brother: “He has a chip in his head.”

My Harvard-educated academic of a father was utterly befuddled at something that made complete sense to my brother and me.

Not everyone is into fantasy; not everyone is even into fiction. My father rarely reads fiction. I can easily see him being confused by the Harry Potter books.

Stupid people do not receive lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Ideologues often do, but not stupid people. Just because the judge had a hard time understanding something that we understand fluently, and just because he might rule against JKR and WB, does not mean he’s stupid. I’m guessing everyone here, even the ones with a legal education, would have a hard time slogging through the thousands upon thousands of cases establishing precedent that the judge must consider in this case. Those who do not have the analytical mind that a judge requires would, I wager, have an especially difficult time. That wouldn’t make you stupid. That just means you think in a different way than the judges who wrote those cases.

To tell you the truth, my biggest fear from the outcome of this case, is if JKR loses and ends up deciding she is too disgruntled by having a “Lexicon” book on the market, as well as opening floodgates for other cheap imitations, that she doesn’t see a point or desire to finish the “Scottish Book”. This would be a horrendous result for her true and loyal fans.

So please Judge, get this one right…it is far too important for future artistic ventures in the world.

Can I just say right now how much I heart Melissa and Elizabeth?

—- And, now, back to our regular programming…

I don’t think the Judge is stupid at all, I’m saying he should think out-side the box a little…Thats all…

... He had trouble reading SS? What kind of judge is this? If he wants a reference book he should give the win to Jo so that she can start writing the encyclopedia.

“Not everyone is into fantasy; not everyone is even into fiction. My father rarely reads fiction. I can easily see him being confused by the Harry Potter books.”

And, while names like Rubeus Hagrid and Bathilda Bagshot may sound ridiculous to him, legal terms like “habeas corpus” and “stare decisis” sound pretty silly if you haven’t spent years trying to understand them in their proper context. (Actually, “habeas corpus” could almost be a spell….)

No offense, Elizabeth, but I’ve always thought that legal people used Latin terms like that in order to make the language they spoke into something exclusive and elite. Only now has it occurred to me that there are elements of fantasy fiction that serve, if only unintentionally, the same purpose—it’s clear who’s “in” and who is “out.”

I don’t get it. I don’t understand why the quality or utility of the Lexicon is relevant. I would think the entire case (as the Wall Street Journal) has pointed out revolves around whether or not its multiple references to JKR’s work fall under Fair Use. Whether the books are simple or complex has no bearing, I would think. The amount of the books that is referenced in the Lexicon does have bearing.

In the end, this will be a very long, drawn out case about what constitutes a reference book that is protected under Fair Use Doctrine.

“The amount of the books that is referenced in the Lexicon does have bearing.”

Well, the American Scholastic hardcover editions of Harry Potter run over 4,000 pages put together. If SVA’s Harry Potter reference is anywhere near that length, Jo need not worry about anyone wanting to read it.

What’s more, peading Steve VanderArk’s summary of the climax of Deathly Hallows cannot possibly have the same empotional impact as reading it on the page, and this is actually a very imoortant point in RDR’s favor. Copyright law looks down on stealing the “heart” of someone’s work, and there’s no way the Lexicon could do that. When the facts of Harry Potter are taken out of a literary context and changed into a reference work, they stop being a story and become simply data.

So the amount of Harry Potter text he used, both qualitatively and quantitatively, when measured against the whole, can’t be that substantial.