Well, not having read all of the comments here, but having read all of the HP books, ( as well as the Earthsea trilogy and later books by Ursula, and the LOR, and lots of other fantasy).
I will say that of course this is a case of copywrite infringement. If he wants to put something out for free?

Robert Adams, Wilkes Barre , PA

Didn't know someone would even bother making an encyclopedia for a kid's book, but hey, look at how long the Wikipedia description for Mighty Morhin' Power Rangers is!

Colm Murphy, Victoria, BC, Canada

Oh Quentin from Reading.

If only the world were that black and white to the rest of us.

They should make you Prime Minister. Or at least editor of Heat magazine.

Rebecca, Cambridge,

J K Rowling has written a series of excellent books for both children and adults AND has allowed children, and adults, to discover the joys of reading books. She is very talented and is a national treasure. Methinks there is much jealousy out there from so many people.

Neil Graham, Mula, Murcia, Spain

I think people were meant to grow with the books - so not necessarily aimed at adult or children exlusively. I don't think she should see that guy as evil though, and should have made an out of court agreement or something...it's just that she said she'd write her own guide and now he's publishing..

Ubayd, London,

And what do you think HP book are?
Adults books? Heavens Sake. One of the mistakes of JKR is that she forgot to what public she was directing her books. First is it was for children then it was for adults, but then it wasnt really for children...

DM, London ,

"Rowling's books are aimed at the 10-12 year old crowd, I believe. "

The earlie ones, perhaps, but the later ones are a tad more complicated (not to mention dark and pretty horrible).

starling, Lancaster,

Try making a guide to USA's religion: Scientology.
Freedom of speech will be stopped by the courts due to copyright.

quentin, Reading, UK

The movies are awful but that's not the point. This is an issue of property rights. Harry Potter is the property of Rowling. I find very little redeeming social value here. I would not want my kids imitating the behavior of any of the characters with one possible exception; Hagrid.

Gary, Hayward, CA

Rowling's books are aimed at the 10-12 year old crowd, I believe. How can a presumably intelligent, literate adult (a judge, perhaps?) not be able to comprehend them?

I hope he never judges any case in which I'm involved!

And folks, what about plagiarism? Just because Rowling has made buckets of money from her work doesn't mean that others have the right to steal it. Hence the lawsuit.

Jenn, CA,

Eugene Kriegsmann, I'd also add Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea Trilogy to the list of Rowling's possible sources of inspiration - much as I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, Le Guin's are infinitely better.

Ruth , Glasgow, Scotland

The real issue seems to have been lost. It's not the case that JKR is trying to stop someone profiting from the HP franchise. It's more the case that this is pure plagiarism. As JKR stated, if he had put quote marks in and references there would not be an issue.

Dee, London, UK

So glad that we're able to share our ill-educated judges with the rest of the world. I'm not surprised he can't follow the plot of a children's book.

Jerry, Simpsonville, SC / USA

The judges comment sounds like a pre-cursor to a biased ruling against Rowling. His inability to follow the plot of a childs book should have no bearing on this case...

charles, Cambridge, Great Britain

I love its. Harry Potter is the first English book I had read the whole set which are 7 of them as I promissed my son that I'll read its since few year ago. I had just finsihed the last book a weeks ago. I had to re-read the last book twice to make sure that I understand properly. My faver is the third book.
My Engish is not good enough but I love it and do understand perfectly, so I don't see the need of any additonal book.
They should respect the work of JK..otherwise need her permission to extended any book related to Harry Potter.
Cheers on Harry:-)
B Sangsuwan, London

Joy, London, England

All these fans of 'Harry Potter' Are saying the judge is being unfair and judgemental without enough knowledge about the books. Wake up he's a 'Judge'! His not knowing the books is a good thing when hearing evidence. His statement about it reading as gibberish to him holds true for many people. Not everyone in the world is facinated by wizardry, witchcraft and occultish type writings. As far as him finding the names and all hard to pronounce, The Bible is most likely harder to read.
I doubt he would have gotten half way through the Bible trying to read it outloud to his grandchildren. All in all, lighten up folks, it's not like she's going to be broke after this trial, or if the reference guide is actually published! I would also bet my house that the majority of you nay sayers will be waiting in line to buy the reference guide if it is published!

B. Smith, Chesterfield, VA

On the Isle of Wight there is an old country road called Muggleton Lane. Why should JKR be allowed to claim intellectual rights on pre-existing words?

Tim C, Southern England, United Kingdom

Interesting how much anti-Rowling sentiment this has provoked from the US..., I didn't hear many of you speaking up for the 'little guy' when US corporations like Walt Disney or Lucas films went after someone in great Britain.

P D Cunningham, prowdly flying the Union Jack in SC.

P D Cunningham, Camden, USA/SC

Mike Gilmer hasn't read the books. See? Told you they're easy to spot.

I could of course go on about Tolkien "stealing" his stuff from old myths and legends, but these kinds of discussions got old ages ago.

M. R., Stockport,

I am both a conservative and a christian, and I have enjoyed all 7 of the Harry Potter books. Some call these books gibberish and others say that it's all fantasy and shouldn't be taken seriously in the courts. One even says that this was simply some billionaire (Rowling) going after the little guy. Well, Rowling wrote the books, and in my opinion they are one of the best written, and most creative series in a long time, and Rowling is entitled to the rights of her work. The Harry Potter books are copyrighted and as the author of those books, it doesn't matter if anyone thinks they are gibberish, or just pure fantasies, or just some stupid fairy tale, Rowling is entitled to the rights of her characters and creativity, and no one should be able to come along and profit off of it without her permission.

Some said that the case should be dismissed, but in America, we value private property and we believe that property rights should be protected for everyone.

Micah Braase, Amite, Louisiana, United States

H Harris,

Please do not generalize about Americans.

I would never presume to generalize about people from the UK. I have traveled a lot and have met a few British people who were quite obnoxious in public. When I was in Prague I saw a lot of drunken British men stumbling down the road as loudly as possible.

On many more occasions I have had engaging conversations with British people here in the U.S. and during my travels. That is the impression I choose to have of the British. I respectfully ask the British to not use some Americans as the model for judging us all. Thanks.

Robert, Andersen, Seattle, WA

Harris,

are you serious? Why the ad hominem attack on Americans? It's not like HP is full-to-bursting with subplots. Come on, at the most, Rowling might have taken 2 or 3 of the archetypal stories identified by Joseph Campbell and tried to roll them into one.

Let's not insult a nation of people just because of one ignorant judge.

Eric, San Marcos, Texas

The whole lawsuit is ludicrous. Rowling is at this point filthy rich and in no danger of EVER being close to need of money. Crying on the stand over turmoil because some sad little man who loves her CHILDREN'S BOOKS wrote a shoddy encyclopedia for other super-fans? I'd go so far as to say it's none of her business to decide what people write about her books. Does she think anyone is going to buy his book before hers? Owning Rowling's original work is a necessity for buying a Harry Potter lexicon anyway. The entire thing is so selfish and transparent that I hope this judge, poor reader as he is, throws the whole thing out and has Rowling pay the little man's defense bill.

Sam Heaton, Vancouver, Canada

What I find truly and deeply disturbing is that a US district judge has a hard time comprehending a Harry Potter book. This is, like, very accessible reading here; it's fourth-grade level at best, and quite transparent. It's not Atlas Shrugged or anything high-brow.

He calls the first book "extremely complex"! And this guy managed to obtain a law degree?!

I mean, wow. That's just pathetic. A sad testimonial to the totally warped, stupendously obtuse, horrendously eccentric, fantastically inane, utterly vacuous judiciary.

Johnny, Parma, OH

TO: New York - District Judge Robert Patterson Jr.

I find your comments to be prejudicial – aka: gibberish, therefore without merit.

Therefore, you might want to consider the matter at hand, "Copyright Infringement" and leave your personal opinion on the other side of the metal detectors which have been placed at the entrances of all US Court Houses to protect you and your clans of little imagination, nor any creative abilities of your own.
SEE Title 17 USC - Copyrights

Robert, Sandy, USA /Utah

I've read Tolkien and I've read Rowling and I think that if Rowling wins this case, the heirs of the Tolkien estate should use the precedent to sue Rowling for plagiarism. As so many HP fans have pointed out, it's a copy-right issue. (It's also an issue of the fact that Rowling has spent as much time suing people who she thought mught threaten her quite considerable income) as she has writing her gibberish. And her gibberish is nowhere near as good as the wonderful and complex world Tolkien created.

Enough of the self-centered, I-will-sue-you-if-you so-much-as look-at Harry-sideways Rowling already.

Inna, sacramento, california

Can everyone stop saying that Rowling has taken Tolkien and recycled it..

Tolkien also took folklore and recycled it to make his LOR trilogy, there were goblins, elves, orcs etc well before Tolkien created his saga, he used Finnish mythology in his novels, blimey he even used the Finnish language to help create the Elvish language used within his books.

Rowling has only done the same, she has taken known mythological stories, known creatures and used them to create her own unique world.

I have read LOR and i have read all the HP Novels, and quite frankly they are brilliant in there own right and therefore a fan of both.

I don't know what the exact words of this Judge was, but if he thinks the novel was gibberish (which i doubt was what he 'exactly' said) then he clearly can not read, but i certainly hope he doesn't use that as his reasons if he goes against Rowling.

Gareth Thomas, Banwell, UK

Oh dear this has turned into an America bashing thread. At least in the USA we can publish almost all books without censorship. Try publishing any book even mildly negative about Islam, you cannot. The Saudis have every big UK law firm on retainer to sue any author even mildly critical of Islam. Ditto in Canada. Thank goodness for free speech in the "bad old" USA.

I do not see how this man is ripping her off with his guide. The books are fairly silly even though they are popular. She has become a billionaire and just wants to squash the little person. A lot of Harry Potter "Trekkies" are posting here as well - get a life. It is pretty hilarous reading Potter "trekkies" here saying the judge and Americans are unsophisticated.

Franc, West Palm Beach, USA/FL

The judge was probably "educated" in a US government school, and taught to "read" using the LOOK/SAY method. So he's functionally illiterate, and the words he's never encountered do look like gibberish to him. Such is the level of education in our country. Bet he change count change either.

Richard Blaine, Atlanta, GA, USA

I think it should be banned, but if she hasn't written it yet, why is she sueing him?

Henry, South Petherton, Somerset

Dear Mr. Lee,

How you made the jump from Harry Potter to the British Empire is anyone’s guess. The judge, as with everyone else, has an opinion on literature which he is perfectly entitled to.

That doesn't detract from the matter, however, that the laws of copyright are clearly being pushed to the limit here, and should remain intact, otherwise it opens the door to all sorts of abuse.

Writers should be protected, not treated as though their work is meaningless.

I put it to you, Mr. Lee, that your problem is your own illiteracy, and not JK Rowling's, because at least she can structure a paragraph and knows how to spell.

Colin Galbraith, Edinburgh, UK

The Harry Potter books are rubbish. So who cares anyway.

Ricky, Sydney, Australia

Good on you judge. Harry Potter is tripe from cover to cover. It just illustrates that the poor British publuic are like sheep. Anyone who believes the soaps are real well it shows that the British empire is in decline. Mediocre and 2nd best is the order of the day here in the UK. Very sad.

kenneth lee, Brighton, Sussex

The judge clearly lacks a classical education.

Roy Brown, Lausanne, Switzerland

The headline claims that a judge called the storylines gibberish, but the text of the story states that the judge presumably was referring to the jargon used in the texts. I assume that the headlines were written by an editor, not by the author of the story -- but shouldn't a headline be an accurate reflection of a story's text? The judge clearly did not say that the storyline was gibberish.

Barton Fink, Vancovuer, British Columbia, Canada

The Harry Potter series are the best, in fact I read them over and over again. I find them quite easy to follow and I'm in 5th grade.

Breeanna, Milwaukkee, Wisconsin

Balderdash and Bunkum!

Soames Forsythe, London,

I think this Steve Vander guy shouldn't be allowed to take away Rowling's ideas that she has copy righted I mean it belongs to her if he sells her idea hes stealing it plain and simple

Ashley, Loxahatchee, Florida

It is a series of childrens' books. It is aimed at children not adults, and loved by them. If you yanks are unable to absorb that surely you need to ask yourselves some hard questions.

Klaudia, Hamburg, Germany

Rowling will lose. Copyright law is about expression. The same story can be told many times by many authors. You can even take the title. We could all write Harry Potter books. What we cannot do is tell a story in the same way as Rowling has.

Mark, Atlanta, USA

Kind of scary when a high level judge finds a childrens book "hard to follow" !!!!

Dave, Camden, New York, USA

Judge Patterson should, perhaps, be reminded that many written works when first read are difficult to comprehend but often need to be finished to be understood. I would not be surprised to hear if he had had a similiar experience when he started reading books on law. If he does not finish the series he does not have the knowledge to rule on this matter.

Paul Moore, Boston, Ma

I have always thought Harry Potter was giberish and would join all those other books like Salman Rushdies etc and History of the Universe etc which everyone buys but few read. It is like the emperor with no clothes.

Mike, Denham, UK

Any judge who cannot unerstand Harry Potter shouldn't be sitting on the bench. Rowling has a right not to be plagiarized regardless of whether the judge understands her work. Perhaps she should have requested a jury trial in the first place.

Dick, New York, NY

It worries me that a judge can't follow Harry Potter. The books, especially the first book, are easily read and understood by elementary-schoolers.

Hannah, Washington , DC

This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of Rowling's books or of her personally. This has to do with stealing someone's work and trying to label it as your own. If she doesn't approve, then it doesn't get published. Its her work, her story. If you were a writer, you would understand. Despite what you think of it, this is years of her work.

Tabitha, Marion, Ohio

if the judge is illiterate to fantasy, imagination, and whimsy why should rowling be penalized

Michael Patrick, Maui, HI

The judge did not actually say that her work is gibberish, but that the words in her work would be gibberish in any other context. This is baiting by the media to get responses from knee-jerk morons...see above... The case is to decide if Vander Ark is ripping her off, not to judge the quality of her work.

Tony, Parsippany, NJ

We Americans have our faults, but we can certainly follow the plot of a Harry Potter novel. Nice shot.

T. Scott, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Rowlings books are a waste of time. They might have "magical" fantasy elements, but as another commenter acknowledged, her storylines are stolen from Tolkien and wrapped in sorcery nonsense. Who cares about Potter anyhow??

Paul, Denver, CO

It doesn't matter how crap the judge thinks HP is,
it's a copy right issue, not a judge the novel contest.

Steve, Manchester, UK

Americans have always found complex story plots hard to follow. If it wasn't for J K Rowling my children would not be the bookworms that they are so good luck to her!

H Harris, Cirencester,

Where does the article compare Tolkien with Rawlings? The judge read too many law books and that messed up his brain. Now, normal writing is gibberish!!!

Linda, Lansdale, PA

To Mike Gilmer, Tolkien plots are recycled monomyths.

How was Harry Potter complicated? Little boy is a wizard, grows up to fight evil wizard. Adventures ensue. It was hardly twist after twist.

Michael Laughton, Runcorn, United Kingdom

It's about time someone called a spade a spade. Rowlings books are recycled Tolkien storylines which have been updated to include modern pop culture nonsense. It's pure drivel. At least this judge can see that. Good for him.

Mike Gilmer, Houma, LA

What a strange thing for the Judge to say...I thought that Law books had the claim to gibberish.

Gary, Golden, USA/Colorado

By definition FICTION == giberish. As is her case against the guy. "fair use" applies. In addition I find it gauling that you can make some crap up and have its copyright protection extended essentially indefinitely yet if you invented a gizmo that cured cancer you get a paultry bit of patent coverage time.

Fred X, Phoenix, USA Arizona

This is once again a case of the billionaire going after the little guy. We see this time and time again. Billionaires and large corporations going after the small fish so that they can line their pockets even deeper.

So what if he writes a Harry Potter reference guide. Does that mean I can't write an article about the History of Coca-cola because I'm infringing on their trademark or slogans?

Jack Smythe, Atlanta, USA

A Fischer you have, like many others missed the point of this legal action. J K Rowling is in favour of such guides provided that they provide a narrative to her work. What she objects to and we as consumers should object to is the rearranging of her work in extracts and passing this off as a guide. The guide in question, she argues, does not add anything new and is effectively just re-arranging her text.

Shelley, London,

Rowling is anything but genius, she capitalized on a collective folklore/mythology that has been around for almost a millennium. She targeted an audience (children) with a quirky wit and that is all I can give her.

The judge is right to call it gibberish in comparison of actual literature and English scholars, while redeeming qualities have been noted it terms of turn of phrase, will still tear it part in terms of writing skill, plot devices, theme and its over all place in the canon of Western Literature. Commercial success does not mean that it is any good.

As for the lexicon. By have PR folks feeding the books to the media and colleges for examination she opens up scholarly debate, that means fair use if encouraged. She herself supported this fellow until he wanted to publish his work. Does that mean she is going to go after a college student that submits a scholarly essay based on her work to a paying magazine?

She has run around the world saying she is done with it. So be done

Brian, Warwick, RI

Which one is a billionaire?

Patric, Bristol, UK

If someone isn't used to reading fantasy type novels they can be very confusing, with unfamiliar words etc. I don't think whether he reads the bible or not has anything to do with it. I'm christian, read the bible and thoroughly enjoyed Harry Potter- all of them.
Just because this and LOR series popular, has nothing to do with people considering alternatives to Christianity. These are works of fiction and fantasy. THINKING people of all faiths can pick out the themes of Good VS Evil in all of them.
Whether the Judge understands the books or not he should be able to decide a copyright infringement case. I'm sure he can find one of his law clerk's whose read the whole series

Kathy C. , Gambrills, Maryland

In Reply To Andrew in Rochester, NY:

Can you explain to me why you decided that the judge was conservative? Would it be because he does not agree with your opinion?

It has become obvious to me that the liberals will tolerate anyone as long as they agree with the liberal establishment. If you disagree, you are called a conservative or hate monger or a nazi.

I have read the books, I think JK Rowling has a great thing going. The issue of the case is not if the judge understands the books, but if he understands copyright law.

For the record, I think the books are gibberish. And enjoyable.

Jim, Auburn, NY

'extremely complex', Oh dear.

God Bless America

Frederick, Oxford,

Can understand JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books would not be popular with the Welsh- and US-based Bible bashers. They really spat the dummy at my mild, innocuous comments; must be harking back to days when forgiving, loving Mother Church could burn real-life Harry Potters at the stake. And the popularity of the HP books, compounded by top-grossing motion pictures, really rubs salt in the wound. Good, eh? The popularity of Harry Potter coupled with Lord of the Rings indicates that the public is more than ready to consider alternatives to mainstream Christianity. So my speculation about the judge reading the Bible was totally relevant. If he’s fundamental Christian then he shouldn’t be trying the case.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

Someone who has only read 'the first half of the first book' is not really in a place to comment on a series of books that grow and develop with each with each twist and turn. I found the first book unimpressive but by the third they have become more mature offerings and they only get more impressive as the series continues.

I bet if you asked the judge's grandchildren, they would say they understood perfectly.

Rowling should not lose out to a theif, because a judge doesn't recognise entertaining creativity. Look at her success, majority says she's a genius.

Hanna, Oxford, England

This judge should have recused himself at the outset of this trial. How can Rowling get a fair hearing from a judge who has prejudged her prose as "gibberish."

Rowling would have fared better witha judge with an appreciation of creative writing. I'm not really a Harry Potter fan, but I fully really realize the scope of Rowling's magnificent achievement.

There's nothing worse than dealing with a pompoous, self-important judge, who will never admit that he doesn't know everything. But too often it goes with the territory.

Even as a very minor writer, I've had my work stolen by others for profit. It is not a good thing. Thievery is thievery, under whatever guise.

Harry Potter is Rowling's. No judge should allow him to be kidnapped by thieves.

JL Strickland, Valley, ALabama

I first became aware of these novels when one of my special education students read the first novel three times and was planning to read it a fourth time. His interest sparked mine, and I began reading each new addition as they were published. I would agree that Rowlings likely got some inspiration from The Lord of the Rings and Narnia, but her characters and the world she created are totally her own invention.
This issue is simply, does another author have the right to create a book using Rowlings characters and invented language without her permission? I think not. We are talking about "intellectual property" which is subject to the same protection as music or films or computer software.
Whether Rowlings book is gibberish or literature does not change her right to the copyright protection granted all such properties.

Eugene Kriegsmann, Bonney Lake, Washington

WOW what a response to an article.

For the record I think the novels are great, and anyone who gets off by vehemently criticising peoples work, and the folk that enjoy it need to take a serious look at themselves (sorry we can't all be like you).........

They're only books people!

The Judiciairy in the US and UK are completely out of touch with the world they sit in judgement on. Why, because they live in gilded cages and act like demigods.

Thats the real story here.

(ooo and JK is right and the other guy is a sponger!)

William, Banbridge,

Personally, I like a judge whose mind does not deal well with fantasy.

Fantasy requires you to detach your logic and knowledge and be swept away by the words and ideas of the story teller.

Would you want a judge who is presiding over a case that could ruin you to be "in touch with his inner child" and be swept away, or would you prefer the judge to weigh the facts and statutes and give a ruling?

Nate, Youngstown, Ohio

This woman has sparked an interest in reading in children, teens, and adults. BURN HER!!1

Bill, New Orleans, LA

A law book is gibberish in any other context. What a pointless statement, and a questionable judge. His personal experience with the book has nothing to do with the case.

Jimmy, Los Angeles, CA

I don't want my children believing that the world was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago by some deity. To me that sound smore fantastical than a clear piece of fantasy literature.

Read well written fiction about witches or attend some US schools and be made to believe that evolution and science in general is wrong and every word written in another "book" is the literal truth?

Fundamental Christians who oppose the Harry Potter works are as dangerous in their views as fundamentalist muslims.

Guy, London, UK

Out! Out! Foul demons-uh. Reading Harry Potter will lead to impure thoughts, fornication, shopping at Wal-Mart and bleeding from your impure anus.

Repent now!

David, Shreveport, LA, USA

Are you kidding me? Gibberish? If the book was too hard for any of you to follow you really may need to consider something from a younger age bracket...say, oh pop-ups. The Harry Potter series is an enjoyable read with a well-crafted character set and exciting plot line. Come on people stop jumping onto band wagons and actually "think" for yourselves.

Ray, Greenville, SC

I was 13 when I read the first Harry Potter novel and was able to follow it fine, which makes me wonder for this judge. Rowling rarely introduces something new without explaining it herself, as for most of the books Harry himself is as oblivious to whats happening as we are as readers. For those who have been following the case, it's clear that the only reason the defence are pressing forward is because of the insane amount of publicity generated from this case.

Jordan Burnett, Norwich, England

It is Fairy Tale Book, so what is the big deal. Apparently Rowling has felt she has become somekind of Godlike being when she is just a person that wrote a Fairy Tale that many children enjoyed.

This is a Courts waste of time. She shoudl grow and move on and quite crying about nothing but a Fairy Tale.

"POOF" Dismisss This Case!

agmines, PITTSBURGH, PA, USA

Gibberish...Good for the judge! There are so many other books out there. I don't know why anyone wastes their time with Harry Potter. If you want to read fantasy, then check out the Lord of the Rings.

Johanna, Atlantic, IA

Surely the issue is not whether the Lexicon is useful but whether lifting huge sections of the Harry Potter books is "fair use". There have been other guides to the Harry Potter which Rowling has not objected to.

Tia , London, UK

The fact that someone can ride your coat tails and produce a book that the you, the author doesn't approve of is just plain "gibberish". Bravo, Marty. She OWNS those works and should have the privilege to veto unauthorized extensions.

ali, Parker, CO

It's amazing how just about everyone here misses the point.

What the heck does the quality of the literature have to do with the the case? Either Vander Ark is ripping off Rowling or he's not.

Stick to the facts Judge, no one wants your opinion on literature.

Erik, Seaford, NY

Possibly the Judge found the Harry Potter book difficult to follow because he is an American and does not have the attention span neccesary to follow a good story. J. K. Rowling's books are brilliant. All her fans and readers should refuse to buy this book which is trying to make money out of somebodyelse's original hard work.

Edwin Aspden, St. Helens, Merseyside

Harry Potter is a mindless boarding-school drivel book. Read Terry Pratchett for a great satire and take on Fantasy.

rory Miller, Owensboro, ky

Andrew Milner's comments are clearly uncalled for here. Regardless of his religious beliefs this judge is entitled to his opinion without abusing those beliefs. If Mr Milner had read the actual statement by this judge he would realize, as others have pointed out that, that the title of this article is totally misleading. Mr Milner is demonstrating how to build a false impression around a sound bite, I suspect he has formed his impression about the Bible the same way, perhaps he should read it in it's entirety before passing judgement

Paul, Newport, Wales

I disagree with Mr. Baker in Maryland. There are plenty of stupid judges and this one is an example. The Potter books require imagination to understand and spark uncharted thinking in the reader. The case involved a determination to decide if a lexicon by another author should be blocked. Ms. Rowling is not on trial here, nor are her works...which involve more creativity than this judge carries in his pot-belly!
This is a problem with the legal systems in America and Britain. Pompous bench dictators feel they have a platform to voice therir opinions. We pay them to make judgements...period.

Tim Robbins, Reno, Nevada, USA

Neither gibberish nor genious, simply common and entertaining, overall goodhearted, well done, and fabulously marketed.

Should others profit without license? It seems not, but legal entanglements are much more complicated than fiction could ever be.

By the way, for serious literature, read Tolkien and Lewis!

Best regards to all,
Charles
Columbus, Georgia, USA

Charles, Columbus, Georgia, USA

The headline is misleading. The judge did not say the stories were gibberish. He said they were hard to follow because of the use of words that "would be gibberish in any other context." That is sometimes true, although most of the "gibberish" words in the Harry Potter books are simply Latin or faux-Latin. The judge's comments about the need for a guide are relevant to his determination whether the defendant has committed copyright infringement. I may not agree with the judge about whether the stories are too complicated. I never felt like they were that hard to follow, but then, I'm not a judge.

I would also like to add, Joe in NY, that I've enjoyed all of the books and movies with my kids, and they somehow have managed to come through it without believing that witches are real.

David, Pocatello, USA/Idaho

"Ha, I'm glad for any bad reviews this woman would get. Her stories are gibberish, the millions she made unworthy. I would not want my children to believe in witches, etc. I have not one ounce of sympathy for her. She got over well with these books by many people who enjoyed them, whatever.

Joe, NY , USA/NY"

her books are fiction and don't advocate the actual existence of witches or wizards. her books aren't occult, they're fantasy, anyone who can't tell the difference (or disagrees that there is one) is an idiot.

Kyle, Washington , DC

The issue is not whether Rowlings' made money. The issue is not whether the judge is goofy for not loving Harry Potter.

The issue is did the defendent take property belonging to Rowlings and rearrange it and present it as his/her own for profit.

Rowlings seems to have no problem if someone elaborates on her saga (that might be fun) as in the case of Robert E. Howard's, Conan The Barbarian, novels. They have been expanded upon by various authors. Her only problem is if someone rephrases what she already did.

MrC, duluth, ga

The criticism that some of Rowling's words "would be gibberish in any other context" could equally apply to the works of Lewis Carrol, JRR Tolkien & the name of many of Dickens' characters.
It seems that many people are taking a stance on the basis of whether or not they like Rowling's books. I have never read any, but as an author she is entitled to have control over her own work in the same way that songwriters & musicians do, regardless of literary merit.
It is a matter of copyright - what does it matter if you enjoyed the work or not?

Tarquin Q. Zanzibar, London, UK

Methinks the lady does protest too much since Harry Potter is highly derivative and the first book in particular is, in my opinion, a poorly written imitation of another much better children's fanatsy book.

Kate Corwyn, Bristol, UK

"i think ull find it says more about people's reading skills more than the difficulty of the book. it millions of children worldwide can understand, enjoy and engross themselves in these books then adults of today have serious readying problems."

i don't think these books are intended for people having problems understanding the books. they're for obsessive fans who want more Harry Potter stuff to waste away their time. I think people should have the right to publish these kinds of books as academic aids, but let's be honest here, this is less about scholarship then it is about cashing in.

Kyle, Washington, DC

Is anyone bothered by the fact that a federal Judge acan not understand harry potter.

My 3rd grader read all of them.

very scary.

NJ resident

teddy, Monmouth, USA/ NJ

As far as I know, J.K. Rowling not only created Harry Potter but secured the copyright on the material along with the folks who publish the books. I think ever since Beatles catalog fiasco no one in their right minds would want to go through that again with anything. If all the I's are dotted and T's crossed, Rowling has every financial and editorial right to prevent others from profiting from her vision.

Gordon, Merritt, Michigan, USA

I reckon the judge is spot on. The books (and even the films which sorted out some of the confusion) are overcomplicated and therefore perfectly describable as gibberish.

It's all about hype.

dominic, Teddington, Middlesex, UK

Hey people, don't forget that JK herself did not invent a single thing in her books. She simply "borrowed" ideas from history and put them in a book. So now someone wants to "borrow" her work and now she is angry. Go figure.

Terry Green, River Oaks, Texas

Well since the US language is a complete bastardization of the English language with irrational spelling differances, its no wonder a US judge couldn't read and understand the works.

Richard, Plymouth,

As a writer, I can understand JK's attachment to her characters. However, I fail to see how anyone could write a lexicon on the books without "plundering her prose." All this is a dictionary/encyclopedia on her work. So they'd have to use her words and definitions. It comes across that she's publishing the same thing and they just beat her too it. As for the judge--did he attend public school?? If he can't follow Harry Potter, it makes me wonder how well he follows legalese which is a lot harder to understand! Certainly someone with no imagination--a real Cornelius Fudge, I'd say.

Cheryl, Houston, TX

Mr Ark is an enterprising soul. If JK wasn't busy counting her billions she might have thought of this money making idea by herself which is, I think,her greedy objection to Mr Ark's work. If she objects to Ark's work she should also object to movie magazines and news reviews of her books and their movies.
Hopefully the judge will rule soon in Mr Ark's favor. May the "FORCE" be with him and the "SCHWARTZ" and Dark Helmet give JK boils and corns.

Al Bundy, Zolfo, FL USA

First off Harry Potter follows the same formula that every children's book follows. It's no different, except the fact that in most good children books it's over by the end of a book. In Harry Potter, JK just drags it on adding useless storylines that are not needed. I can suggest children, countless other books where they will questions things in society and within themselves such as The Giver by Lois Lowry.

Eduardo , Miami, Florida

How is it possible that Judge Patterson is going to render any sort of fair ruling if he found a book beloved by literally millions of children too complex? This case is clear cut. Complex or not, the material was all born in JKR's imagination. The Online Lexicon is sufficient for anyone looking for information. Charging $24.95 for someone else's work is theivery.

KML, Ijamsville, MD

It is my fervent wish that readers and especially commenatators to this article would read and understand the story before commenting on it. It exasperates me how many comments do not take into account the context of the statements by the principles. It appears that too many people merely read the title of the story and then take full meaning from the headline neither delving into the story nor engaging their brain.

Jim, Oak Park, USA/Illinois

Nothing wrong with a little gibberish or rubbish, even in the story line, for the purpose of escapism. There are however many more important things out there for kids to ocupy their minds with. Real world things like math, science, social science, history, real language, philosophy, even politics. Because when they return from their escape they still have to deeal with the real world.

John R. Hugo, D.D.S., Kansas City, Missouri

I agree a lexicon would be useful however, since Ms Rowling has indicated the lexicon's author has merely reproduced her own prose, instead of writing up his own work, then I must agree with her belief that the copyright has been infringed.

Reproducing her work in A-Z format with the intention of making money from it is definitely not right.

Moira, Toronto, Canada

Plagiarism is frowned upon in academic works and will get you kicked out of any degree course quicker than you could say palgiarise. If this person really has just lifted her work - and by the sounds of it has done - then she should win regardless. Those of you with opposing opinions should perhaps think of what you have created in the past, or what you could create if you had the imagination, and think - if you put in 17 yrs of creating original ideas and working hard how would you feel if someone took your ideas and tried to benefit from them. Of course - if you have no imagination think about the workplace. Ever been screwed over by somone taking an idea and going to the boss with it and passing it off then getting a reward or promotion from it? Same thing!
Why shouldn't she have rights to her own work? So she's made millions and millions - get over your green eyed jealousy.

Louise, Plymouth, UK

Tried to read Harry Potter, gave up in the end, same with the movie.
Found it most boring or I may be out of touch.

Lia, Guangzhou, China

I am not interested in fantasy and have not read the Harry Potter books. However, I did read this article, which seems to be rare among these posters. I have never read so much ignorant garbage as here in these posts. Real spells? the judge is stupid because he notes that she made up words? What is wrong with you people?

Al, Lloydminster, Canada

Laws regarding Intellectual Property in the US are really quite clear...unless you have obtained explicit, written consent from the author, don't use their work unless it's from 1923 or before. Anything after that, and you're generally in violation of copyright laws.

If the writer of the lexicon obtained such permission, JKR may NOT revoke it without another agreement, again, expressly written and signed by all involved parties.

The websites and free content are a different matter, but are still a violation of CR laws, unless they are done in Parody/Satire, in which case they can do almost anything. They are categorically different than a book because the information is free on one and the book gives an author money for another author's IP. Technically, unless JKR has personally approved the other works regarding HP, then she is entitled to sue the bajesus out of them as well, if she wants.

The judge's comments are irrelevant. Get off the bandwagon and understand what he said.

Kevin Rohan, Spencer,

J. K. Rowling's main problem is, she has allowed online versions of Harry Potter Lexicon's to go unchallanged since she started writing the series.

She has in fact made public comments, encouraging them.

One of the main tenets of copyright infringement, is that you must actively protect your works.

So it is a little late to start trying to prevent them now.

thomas quizeller, clarksville, tn

What is the position of her lawsuit?

I for one love the books, and love that fact that I can look up facts that I missed.. Is it that she wanted to publish a grand work of a lexicon like this? it would be a good money maker.. or should she let it me licensed? so she get a small share from all his work?

It's her creation she has full title to it. But his work in organizing it she should wrap her arm around in my eyes.

Or.. does she let it thrive like the add-ons enigma of World of Warcarft? Fine line.. what would you do? free trade and bruild your empire that way, or demand licensing thus thwarting all enginuity and you have to create it yourself?

She obviouslty needs to keep the drive going now that the story has "ended". how should she go about this?

Hoont, Reedley, CA

Honestly, people who criticize Harry Potter fans are useless. If someone wants to educate themselves by reading, who are you to make fun of them? This woman got thousands of children into reading...something far better than television or video games. You should be ashamed of yourself for not realizing the good that she's done. How dare you say she is undeserving of her wealth.

US judges should judge based on law, not on whether or not they think an encyclopedia would be useful.

NONA, Washington DC, USA

Good Lord! Reading these comments, it is apparent that too many people are wrapped tightly around the axle. People rise to the defense of Ms. Rowling as if she were a messianic figure. The Judge is doing his job and made an observation steeped in reality. The truth is words that she made up to round out her books and give that world character, are as he truthfully said, gibberish. If people believe that she is condoning witchcraft, demonic and diabolic things, then you should school and mentor your children accordingly. Ms. Rowling came up with a gimmick to publish which has made a lot of money and has established a large fan base and readership. Give the woman her due. But, if you read into a fantasy with no foundation in the real world, more than there is, then you may have to have your credulous duplicity meter serviced.

Griff, Ft. Riley, KS

I read the first book in the Harry Potter series and enjoyed it. However I disagree with the doctrine that there are good and bad witches. Two kinds of people call themselves witches: People who merely want to attract attention, and people who are true witches, or Satan wirshippers. To imply that any good can come from witchcraft could be confusing to a child. Check out The Sword of Deneb, which purports to be the Christian response to Harry Potter.

Robert R Clough, Palatine, IL

The judge may consider JKRowling's work to be gibberish; however. I think that any work that gets children reading has to be good news. Enid Blyton was decried by many for her view of a child's world, and was excluded from many libraries for a time; she did get children reading and from there into othe more 'worthy' literature.

Jan Harper, Dunkeswell, Devon

In reply to Joe, NY , USA/NY:

Quote:
"Ha, I'm glad for any bad reviews this woman would get. Her stories are gibberish, the millions she made unworthy. I would not want my children to believe in witches, etc. I have not one ounce of sympathy for her. She got over well with these books by many people who enjoyed them, whatever."

-----------------

I think that as a 14 year old (going on 15) I do not believe in witches or wizards but the idea was so readable and the way that she wrote the books ingeniously for children and adults alike to delve into the magical world that she creates. I remember that I could never put the books down, and would always sit up really late (meaning 11pm at 9-11 years old) reading them in bed. I still sometimes flick through the exciting bits of the books when I'm bored, and if you, Joe from NY, had actually read any of the books, then you would understand the effort that JK put into her books.

Nathan, York, United Kingdom

to those that say they don't want their children believing in Witches, there is such a thing called "imagination" and "fiction".

Just because you don't know how to understand such things, or think that fictional names and places are too confusing for you to fathom doesn't make it gibberish, it makes YOU daft.

I read a book once called the Wizard of Oz, and I don't believe in talking tin men and flying monkeys....
The ignorance in conservatism is astounding.

and Trevor, how is professing disdain any better than love - neither is impartial. He should never have made these comments in the first place, and has already forecasted his ruling, that it "would be useful" (because he is an ignorant boob).

Besides, since when did taste have anything to do with copyright infringement?

Andrew, Rochester, NY

It is Rowlings' work, she should have a say in how her work is re-printed. However, I have to take issue with Trevor in LA. The fact that someone does not LOVE the Potter books is hardly an indication of intelligence. I've read one Potter book and certainly did not LOVE it. On the other hand I am constantly reading technical manuals for CCIE and ESX.

Tim, Henryville, IN, USA

I soldiered gamely through about half of the very first Harry Potter story, and gave up when I realized that I couldn't have cared less what happened to Harry, his friends, or his foes. The idea that this fairy tale nonsense has genuine literary value appalls me. Rowling needs to start taking herself and her bedtime stories a great deal less seriously. Her work is on a slightly higher plane than Superman comics.

Peter Dawson, Peterborough, Canada

@ Joe in Plymouth:

One judge called the books gibberish and you extend that to say the American legal system is somehow gibberish? A petulant response from a Brit is expected..nonsensical logic is not.

Are we supposed to also say that there are no dentists in the UK because more than enough of you walk around with bad teeth?

Sam, tulsa , US

What's all the hubub about?Didn't JK rip off the name ,Harry Potter" from."It's A Wonderful Life"?How can she get away with such plaigiarism?Unless.of course,she's attributed the right to use the name "Harry Potter"?What do her Potter books say about that?

Sean O'Neill, Greenfield, wi

Gibberish or not (and lets face it, the same people that call this gibberish would wax lyrical on Lord of the Rings - which is equally gibberish - as are all fantasy novels) the fact is, it got millions of kids reading again. Not a small task in this age of TV, DVDs, electronic games, etc.

Plus, copyright is copyright. And he is trying to make a buck by essentially copying bits out of her books and saying it some form of lexicon.

Sounds very typically American. Lets complain about other countries stealing our creative content but back our people up with 'gibberish' legal pronouncments when the need arises.

Paul, Toronto, Canada

Geez people read the article before you post! She as much as said its ok to make a book like this, but just dont copy large sections of her books verbatim. She's right.

adam russell, sierra vista, arizona

Parents shouldnt allow their children to play with young Harry Potters witchcraft. It actually opens doors to evil spirits. I wouldnt want my child on medication or subject to a difficult exorcism at a committed christian church because of demon powers.

Graeme Gibson, Sydney, Australia

I have never read so much garbage in my life.
I don't mean the HP books , I mean the comments sent in.

Ned Kelly, Sydney, Australia

Did you know that some of the spells in the HP books are real spells? Do you want your children casting real witchcraft spells on their friends? Do you want to expose your kids to the works of Lucifer? Just because you don't believe in "evil" or the devil or God does not mean that they do not exist. Putting your head in the sand and denying the truth is dangerous. And to comment on the JEDI thing, GOOD wins over EVIL. In the HP series, EVIL wins over evil. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. That is exactly what the HP opoligists are doing.

Mike, Chicago, IL

Without seeing the Lexicon its hard to be accurate but if the Lexicon is the authors interpretation of the information and description of the story and characters, that is not an infringement on the seven Harry Potter books. It is a direct competitor to a story summary that JK says she intends to write but not infringement.
Based on the information presented so far, it sounds to me that she sees this book as real competition and that is really at the heart of her argument. Competition is legal in this country and I believe she will see find that out as she loses this case.
I really don't see what drives her. The story is done and none of these books will come close to the sales of the series. Go sit on a beach and enjoy your billions. Let this fan earn a few bucks from his passion. What's the big deal.? Besides, true Potter fans will probably buy hers when it comes out two years also just to see how accurate the Lexicon was and to have a complete collection.

Chuck, Novi, MI

Without seeing the Lexicon its hard to be accurate but if the Lexicon is the authors interpretation of the information and description of the story and characters, that is not an infringement on the seven Harry Potter books. It is a direct competitor to a story summary that JK says she intends to write but not infringement.
Based on the information presented so far, it sounds to me that she sees this book as real competition and that is really at the heart of her argument. Competition is legal in this country and I believe she will see find that out as she loses this case.
I really don't see what drives her. The story is done and none of these books will come close to the sales of the series. Go sit on a beach and enjoy your billions. Let this fan earn a few bucks from his passion. What's the big deal.? Besides, true Potter fans will probably buy hers when it comes out two years also just to see how accurate the Lexicon was and to have a complete collection.

Chuck, Novi, MI

What I find truly and deeply disturbing is that a US district judge has a hard time comprehending a Harry Potter book. This is, like, very accessible reading here; it's fourth-grade level at best, and quite transparent. It's not Atlas Shrugged or anything high-brow.

He calls the first book "extremely complex"! And this guy managed to obtain a law degree?!

I mean, wow. That's just pathetic. A sad testimonial to the totally warped, stupendously obtuse, horrendously eccentric, fantastically inane, utterly vacuous judiciary.

Johnny, Brooklyn, OH

Vander Ark has written a compendium that is comparable to any other. The quasi spiritual mystique of Potter is stupid. The author should be overjoyed that she has made billions on such gibberish. Her vexation gives her the image of a witch.

Morgan Smith, Santa Fe,

I'm not sure anyone understands these novels. I cannot understand the language or the spells and find it difficult to follow the narrative. And I am a voracious reader of novels, both classic and post modern. I agree with the judge. Pure nonsense and sloppy narrative structure. I think this woman wrote this crap on and overdose of Prozac.

Martin, San Francisco, USA

I have never been able to read a Stephen King book...However I love watching the movie adaptations...

Different minds work differently...

Bob Geshel, Hitchcock, OK, OK/USA

Rowling took almost her entire storyline from other fantasy authors. Somehow it's not a problem until it happens to her...

Daniel, Whittier, CA

This is about Copyright, not about the Judge's liking or not the idea of a lexicon.

It is essential to the rights of authors to earn whatever their gift of writing can earn them--no matter how large the fortune (AND no matter how insignificant the fortune)--the issue is how to protect the rights of the creators of stories, photos, art....

Copyright is an essential thing to protect for the good of a civilized culture--it is simply wrong to steal, and copyright laws protect artists from theft of their hard work.

There have been MANY books written about The Harry Potter books, I've read maybe 8 of them and enjoyed them.

The copyright question: IS the Lexicon done in a way that violates copyright law, or is it not? The decision will effect every other author out there, not just this author.

I am grateful that she is willing and able to fight to uphold copyright law.

I hope she wins.

Ann Seeton, BCS, TX

FIrst of all, Joe - I hope you don't let your children watch/read the Wizard of Oz, Cinderella, Snow White and dozens of the other children's stories as all of them have characters who are witches. JK Rowling's books are FICTION. She has NEVER said anything to the contrary.
As for the words being gibberish, it's well known (to Harry Potter readers) that many of the words/names are based on actual words.
Wingardium Leviosa: English wing meaning "fly", Latin arduus meaning "high", and Latin levis meaning "light".
That being said, how they are arranged is a result of JK Rowling. They should be considered her intellectual property. A free website listing all these words is no different from Wikipedia. However, the fact that someone is making a profit from JK Rowling's ideas is wrong. Whether you like her books or not, Vander Ark did not "transform" Rowling's work into his own. He simply copied it down with definitions. I'm sure that took a lot of brain power.

Melanie, Omaha, NE

Great books. Give her what she wants. My kids love it and their vocabulary relects their love for reading which I know is a direct spinoff for reading HP. It is difficult at first, but you become used to it. My kids, 6,8,and 10, still love for me, their dad, to read H.P. aloud and it can be challenging. However, I take pride in my mastery of pronunciation and occasionally, tripping up on purpose, I am immediately corrected, sometimes times three.

Also, my kids believe in God and perfectly capable of distinguishing that which is fiction.

William, Jacksonville, Fl

Remember, Rowling is basically just a housewife who "decided to start writing"... It's not and never will be considered great literature. Rowling's "prose" is amateurish, at best, and pure gibberish, at worst. It makes money because it's aimed at children and simple-minded adults.

Charles Miller, Kings Mountain, NC, USA

Gregory Baker,

"As a writer" who presumably hasn't had anywhere near the level of success of J.K.Rowling (if any), why do you think your opinion on the length of her work matters?

Which pretty much goes for the majority of commenters, a lot of whom won't even have read the books, but can't resist a knee-jerk slap-down of adults who enjoy children's literature, or are insanely jealous that a woman with so much talent has been so richly rewarded. Get over yourselves. Or pick up a pen and do something better, seeing as you're all so talented at picking holes in her plots, inspirations, dialogue and the like.

Criticism is easy. Creativity's the hard part. And having created something, Rowling's entitled to defend it from plagiarism. If this case was about someone suing Rowling for ripping their ideas off, you'd all be shouting for her head, baying for her to be financially ruined. Yet when the tables are turned, you still want to see the wealthy author punished.

Avada Kedavra

Phil Stott, New York, via Dundee

Poor J. K. Rowling. Apparently, her books are such gibberish that she can't sell a single one.

Matt, Santa Fe Springs, CA

After living in USA for a few years I have come to the conclusion that most Americans are educated in a 'robotic way' . No one is allowed to express themselves or remove themselves away from their 'normal' way of thinking.

If it's not written in the 'Constituation ' most Americans including the the highley educated judge , will not understand !!!

GO JK !!!!

Jane Varcoe, Norwich , Norfolk

The woman can write, very well indeed. She reminds me of Agatha Christie.

I and millions throughout the world enjoy every book and then enjoy the movie.

The learned judge should keep his irrelevant and inexpert opinion to himself and rule on the law of the case which one hopes he knows something about since it's obvious he knows zero about literature.

Don't worry Jo, the man's a philistine but he must rule for you since your work is not yet in the public domain thus it is yours.

Gideon, Port Owen, South Africa

I find it rather frightening that a judge find's a children's book hard to follow.

Shannon, Thunder Bay, Canada

The Harry Potter series is a SATANIC work by a tragically misguided woman. This poor woman actually thinks herself to be a "Christian", while encouraging children to develop an affinity for evil and witchcraft. Something expressly forbidden by He whom she claims is her Lord.
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

Galatians 5:19-21
19. When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,
20. idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division,
21. envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Amen.

Keith, Van Nuys, USA/ California

Trust me, Judge Patterson is intelligent enough to understand the Harry Potter books. I don't think youi graduate from Columbia Law School without being able to read better than any of us. Trust me, if you can understand Pennoyer v. Neff, you can understand any written word.

All he is pointing out is that an encyclopedia would be useful. Does not anyone else find it humorous that Rowling is "vehemently anti-censorship" but sued some guy who compiled an encyclopedia about her books? I mean let's focus on the fact that Rowling is a greedy hag. Doesn't she have enough money? Just let the guy print the encyclopedia...

Chet, Chetsville,

I'm a 76 year old Grandma and I thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter books--as did my 73 year old brother and my grown children and grandchildren. These books remind me of the books I read as a child and young adult . They took me into the world of makebelieve which contained drama, adventure and laughter. These books stimulate the imagination and gives hours of enjoyment. Just because the Judge doesn't understand the books doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy them. There's probably a lot of the books the judge reads that I wouldn't read and feel that they are jibberish but I wouldn't condem them for other people. I hope the Judge gives JK Rowling the credit she deserves and rules in her favor.

Betty, Vancouver, Washington

I believe the Judge's point is being twisted. From the outset he has urged the two sides to reach agreement outside of the courtroom. His statement (as written in the article) seems to imply he would have found the lexicon useful in relating with his grandchildren and thier enjoyment of the books. As for rest of the comments and positions taken here... No harm comes from reading a book, God enjoys a well written story as much his children, Rowling is being stingy! but it is her life's work she can do that if she wants.

Chaz, Thontosassa, Florida

This judge can't follow Harry Potter? Then we wonder what's wrong with the legal system in this country?

Carl, NYC, ISA

I'm surprised she didn't blast him with an avada kedavra spell.

Jim, Chicago, IL/USA

The Very Learned Clive of Dartfrod (sic) offers a novel legal theory, namely that the wealth of a plaintiff should deterrmine whether she has a valid legal claim! How very....British!!

The Very Learned Jenn needs to read the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, wherein a POWER of the federal legislature is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;..."

Federal copyright is thus not just a "regular federal law", but one based on a legal concept the Framers thought sufficiently important to enshrine in the Constitution. (Funny, innit, how the same Constitution doesn't mention any right to, say, farm, oil or ethanol subsidies.)

All the stuff about "gibberish" is utterly immaterial to the legal claim Rowling is making. It's shocking to see how clueless, obtuse and censorious so many commenters reveal themselves to be.

Anna Keppa , Lexington, MA,

"The judge needs to defend her constitutional right to protecting her piece of work and not whether or not he feels it is worthy or unworthy."

I don't think that copyright is a a Constitutionally guaranteed right...

Anyhow, the librarian may win if the Judge considers his work "transformative" which I consider it to be.

Chet, Chetsville,

she ripped the idea off Terry Pratchett so what is she complaining about?

karen, florida,

I enjoyed the books, but wouldn't care if they had never been published. However the opinion of a judge is absolutely irrelevant, legally speaking.

Ben, York,

I hope the guy who wrote the companion "encyclopaedia" wins.

My car came with a basic servicing guide but do Haynes (manuals) have to pay Volkswagen a fee for all of it's detailed manuals on servicing/repair of cars? Nothing on the Wikipedia Haynes page suggests they do.

Same difference to me. Some expert came up with a useful helpful companion guide about another expert's work. So what if it names the mythical names and places she has used. Rowling and her legal team seem angry that they didn't think of it first. Anyway for the judge to decide.

David S, Manchester, UK

right on steve from a fellow hoosier

jh, Indianapolis, IN

The next huge similar book series in Britain is supposed to be the Dopple Ganger Chronicles by G.P. Taylor, which comes out in September '08. Can't wait.

Phil, Nottingham, UK

The point is about J.K's rights, not about whether the judge understands the books or not, the judge needs to decied if other authors has the right to write about her works or if the Leixcon is not allowed to; in my view J.K rowling should be the only one allowed to write about her books unless authors seek permission from the original author, which in this case consent has not been given.

Archie, London, UK

Poor J.K. Rowling. Apparently, her books are such gibberish that she can's sell a single one.

Matt, Santa Fe Springs, CA

Most heavy-duty English Literature is gibberish, hence the need for "Cliff Notes" and other appendixes to decipher them, teachers spending thousands of classroom hours interpreting them.

Guess they will all have to be pulled.

Tessa, WX, USA

Image if Shakespeare had written his own dictionary and commentaries of his works! I would much prefer to buy Rowling's commentary and dictionary as they would be the most authoritative. Others who do this should be allowed to do so at their own risk. The bottom line will be what Rowling says. But the nature of folks is to explore and reflect and generate conversation and ideas and to share in an experience of community. Rowling has created not only a body of literature but a community that really would appreciate the additional comments, etc. that she or anyone else would share. It is an incredible compliment to her and her writings that folks want to write about what she has written, much like what has been done for Shakespeare's works and the Holy Bible. Both have had many commentaries and dictionaries and lexicons and movies and plays written and produced by untold numbers. That is the way it should be about an extraordinary body of literature! RS

RS, Ft Worth, USA

It's sad that so many people have a hard time reading and comprehending this story. Is it their education level, some kind of wierd psychological blockage, or simply that they are too impatient to read past the title and first line?

adam russell, sierra vista, arizona

Plagiarism is wrong, mmmk?

adam russell, sierra vista, arizona

It's sad that this old geezer judge doesn't understand what the books are about. I think he's an example of how out of touch with reality judges in the United States are.

Jeremy, San Diego, USA

So let me see if I have this straight. A judge is not qualified to be on the bench if he does not love Harry Potter. Wow! I hope they start teaching Harry Potter in law schools so that we can have qualified judges in the future. Let the impeachment trials begin!

B. Cardozo, New York, NY

The man's got a point.

Chris, London,

He didn't say the storylines were gibberish - what a terribly misleading headline.

Andrew, baltimore,

The judge did not say the storyline was gibberish as you claim in your title. If you read your own story you see he said some of the words were gibberish. Obviously he meant that they have no definition in standard english which is true.

adam russell, sierra vista, arizona

I question the opinion of a judge that has trouble grasping the "extremely complex" world of Harry Potter, while millions of children in many different languages all over the world seem to understand it with ease.

Steve, Indianapolis, IN

The really shocking thing is that someone calling themselves a Federal Judge which is a lifetime appointment I might add can't follow a book my 10 year old has read twice.

mike, miami,

Rowling is like a dragon sitting on its treasure dictating the rules and making silly revelations about her books to grab press attention.

Not allowing any freedom to interpret her world (based on previously described mythical elements)is ashame-I cant see how publishing a fan based lexicon will have any affect on her billion dollar empire.

Look at how the Tolkein world was opened up to interpretation and its stories/characters absorbed into classical works, mythology, RPG and lexicons among other things. Her world is empty and one-sided compared to Tolkien's now.

john lowen, halifax, novascotia

The legal issues involved seem quite clear, and she'll no doubt win her case. But it seems to me the two of them should have compromised and worked together to provide an authorised companion to the series.

However, the question of the novels' quality is another matter. JK Rowling is to literature what Andrew Lloyd Webber is to music. Unimaginative, derivative, and aimed at the lowest common denominator. Of course, that is not to say that they don't deserve their popularity and each has been responsible for introducing millions to the worlds of music and literature. But please, recognise them for what they are - a first step on the road to quality works.

Both JK Rowling and Dan Brown could learn a lot from popular authors like Steven King and John Grisham about how to craft a novel. And the deliberate use of gibberish (to use the word of the week) in her books is no different from the pseudo-technical jargon found in Star Trek or the faux-mystical themes in the Matrix series.

John, Luxembourg,

Odd that a judge should suddenly become a literary critic when the case has nothing to do with value of content but rather ownership of content. Likely Judge Patterson has not read much science fiction or fantasy at all, since the genres are replete with "gibberish."

Patterson's comments present a good argument for encouraging attorneys to read materials other than legal briefs.

Sam Davis, Annapolis, US Maryland

Rowling has successfully capitalized on the reading public's confirmed ignorance: it would appear that no one can read Latin any more, not even judges. But if Rowling is greedy enough to sue the editor of this guide, she should have been greedy enough to authorize one herself in the first place. "Gibberish" or no, she has gone to the courts to enforce her will retroactively. If precedents are respected, she is likely to lose.

Stephen, Houston, Texas

I think judges are supposed to say things that sound totally out of touch with the world. It makes people think that they're impartial.

Geoffrey, Sydney,

Hey Jen M:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

That's the Constitution, empowering Congress, to confer a Right. So, yeah, it is a Constitutional right.

Stan, Portland, OR

There is no constitutional right to copyright. It is a regular Federal law.

Jenn M., LA, CA

I understand J. K. Rowling's valid fear of copy-right infringement, a fear based on another person's ability to expand on the authentic author's work, thus capitalizing on the "grunt-work" already accomplished. This is not that case, however. The work in question does not add one single thing not already well-documented and attributed to Ms. Rowling. In fact, as has been noted by no less than the judge presiding over this case, it will be a perfect companion volume for the less well-informed Harry Potter fans. Even should Ms. Rowling compile her own companion volume, I can only believe it would be received as an additional "Harry Potter" adventure, regardless of its nature or intent, simply because of its authorship; whereas this other compilation, by the very nature of its birth, adheres strictly to what was published, and in the order of each release of information. This makes it the closest thing to a "lay-man's guide-book of Harry Potter, a good guide to gibberish".

Angela Williams, Lufkin, Texas, United States of America

Forget leeroy, I think Pete from Newport had the most insightful thing to say. And i'm not being facetious.

Remy, Lausanne,

There is no Satan. There are no demons. Harryy Potter is simply a fantasy story for children. An entertaining one at that. And no, some Joe who comes in out of the cold and republishes her writing to make money for himself does not have the right to do so.

Steve, Dallas, TX

Some of the people need a life, This is why we have the word " Fiction" it does have a place in our vocabulary.....

sven Goldmanis, Mercer Island, USA Washington

It is a sad state of the legal system, that a judge can not follow a book that is pitched at 11 year olds.

Steve, Tampa, fl

My daughter loves the books, and I was okay about them (read 'em all) until JKR got weak and PC. However, even my then fourteen-year-old daughter had no problems comprehending plot, setting, and character. I'm rather worried about a judge who doesn't.

Mack Hall, Kirbyville, Texas

Clearly, the judge is a muggle.

Maya, Annapolis, Maryland

Nerds to the defense!!!!!!

tyhoo, ashburn, va

It is good to see the Judge appreciate the need for such a Lexicon or guide compiled by the Harry Potter community. How many hundreds of millions has this Lexicon community sent Rowling's way? If there were no Internet, no online Harry Potter culture, how much poorer would she be right now? Why after supporting the work on this site is she clamping down so brutally on anything that contributes to the culture of “Harry Potter”. Tolkien fostered many spinoffs (critiques, guides, games)- and like Tolkien JK Rowling has borrowed heavily from mythology and molded it into a new story. What of the copyright protection behind these mythologies? Unlike Tolkien she is not open to independent interpretations and extrapolations of these worlds.

ben lowen, Annapolis, Canada

The whole HP story is gibberish. If it must be read it should be by little girls. Not young boys that should learn about being good men. The books teach nothing that can be used in life. Beleave in magic and wishes. If one must read fiction read a Louis L'amour. Better yet a Bible. For god sake and that of our nation, have the kids read some good books for a change. Not something about a boy rideing a broom. How about teaching the kids how to use a broom, the right way.

Marc , MiltonFreewater, Oregon

I am a HUGE Harry Potter fan and she has made my life better with her tales. BUT - how can she fight a book surrounding the HP lexicon when there are web sites devoted to the same?
How about www.hp-lexicon.org - that exists, so why not a book?

Joyce, Land O lakes , FL, USA

My three grandchildren tried reading HP and told their parents it was unreadable rubbish: But then their parents had raised their kids on childrens' classics which they loved, including Dickens. They could make comparisons and chose to throw HP books they had been given into the garbage bin. All three kids are saved Christians and love to read and study their Bibles as such they are well advised of the dangers of dabbling in the occult. I asked them what their school friends thought of the HP Books and they told me they thought they were rubbish. The school they attend is not a Christian school but a State run school which has an exciting participation in the dramatic arts involving schools across N.S.W. Much time and effort outside of school hours by teachers, parents and students are put into productions called "Wakikiri" (see web). Materials used are recycled. Each school creates their own theme many of which are related to environmental issues.

sheila , Ulladulla, NSW Australia

Strange that the judge can't seem to follow or understand what tens of thousands of children have had no problem comprehending... hope doesn't try reading James Joyce any time soon!

Even so, the issue is plagiarism and copyright infringement, not whether or not Rowling's series needs a glossary.

Laura, San Francisco, California

The judge didn't say her book was gibberish. He clearly said it would be gibberish in any other context outside that of the complicated story and "magical" storyline. I hate it when people take someone's words and twist them in this way. Read what he said. He didn't say the book was gibberish.

Erin, Atlanta, GA

Whether you like the Harry Potter books or not is a matter of your own opinion. I think they are terrific. However, there is no exception from the copyright laws for copying poor literature if that is what you think of them.

JKR stated before she even finished the series that she would publish an encyclopedia. I wouldn't even think of looking at anyone else's anyway since only the storyteller knows the true ins and outs of the characters and events of a fictional work.

True Harry Potter fans will boycott any any publication from a freeloader trying to get rich off of JKR's genious.

Bob, Shelton, CT

The judge said that the magic words were gibberish to him, and indeed they are outside of the context of the novels. Rowling's spells are often false Latin cognates, that give a mysterious air to what is being said, while also being somewhat recognizable to the readers. Using these words in any other context would result in gibberish, but in the novels they are a marvelous addition. There is a significant difference how