i dont believe this! there sits a person that is worth over £565 million and she is trying to sue some smaller person for copyright?! anyone see similarities between Rowling and Nancy Stouffer work? larry potter and harry potter, word Muggles was used by Stouffer way before Rowling! Look it up!

pat smith, Cheltenham, England

"filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT". He's spot on - in what context outside of Harry Potter conversations would you ever use the words "quidditch", "muggles", "death eaters" and "expelliarmus" and expect to make sense??

Katharine, Cambridge, Cambs

How can you decide it's a case of copyright infringement when your list doesn't include the book that's supposed to be guilty of that, Mr Adams? It's available online in the legal documents somewhere.

By the way, if the HP books were truly just children's books, JKR wouldn't be on the rich list.

M.R., Stockport,

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 however between a judge referring to a created word as gibberish outside of its context and calling the storyline gibberish. Perhaps the Times reporter could use a dictionary himself.

Michael, Milwaukee, USA

It has absolutely nothing to do with selfishness, her ego or anything else of which she is being accused of in this comment column. The HP books are her intellectual property, and if someone has used her words verbatim in a profit making venture then they need to acknowledge her work using quotation marks and references. She, like hundreds of other authors, have borrowed from the literary tradition, but no author has the right to take whole passages of someone else's work and reproduce it as their own. This is WRONG.

Opinons about the literary quality of her work is a far more interesting debate, but is immaterial to the court case. If someone really needs a reference guide to help them through the series:
1. Try 'The Hungry Caterpillar', and then work up the difficulty levels
2. Read one of the other reference guides to HP, which gives due reference to the author
3. Wait for Rowling's reference guide, which will be far more entertaining than a regurgitation of original books

Ella, London,

I find it remarkable that this judge fails to understand what the average American 10 year old seems perfectly capable of comprehending. Perhaps the judge needs a dictionary to read Alice in Wonderland? If Harry Potter is too complex then "Jabberwocky" is sure to give him nightmares. The blatant favoritism evident in his statements seem quite at odds with the notions of fairness for which the vast majority of U.S. judges strive. I am ashamed of the judge.

Dionne Stanford, Washington , D.C.

Rowling has harmed her reputation by attacking this editor after endorsing him and giving him an award. She does not have her own lexicon ready to go, and won't even endorse the existing one as a preliminary. It's unreasonable, in a case that is far from simple. This looks like a greedy author trashing someone who helped her career by providing a free reference online. If this were actually about copyright, why did Rowling only make a claim after the print version was planned? It's too bad that authors become convinced of their importance when they make money. The most embarrassing part is how she has whined to the press about her rough early life. Nothing grates on Americans like a Crybaby Billionaire.

Stephanie, Seattle, USA/Washington

Harry Potter??UMMM,why does that name sound familiar?Oh,I got it,it's from "It's A Wonderful Life".I wonder if Rowlinig got permission to use it from the movie makers???

sean Oneill, greenfield, wisconsin

I agree whole-heartedly with Joanne from Texam. I wish I had written her comments.
Margaret, Ontario, Canada

Margaret Campbell, Oxford Station, ON, Canada

The judge wasn't saying that the books were gibberish. He was saying that there were gibberish words in the books.

Well guess what. The books ARE filled with words that would be gibberish in any other context.

That's coming from somone who genuinely enjoys the books.

Mark, Catonsville, MD

who cares. I found the books to be redundant and tiresome after a whle. How many times can you rehash the same plot themes. - suckers

Jane, Dublin, OH

Certainly some of the words are gibberish.

However, (only having seen the films but do assume that the books are similar in detail) I do very much appreciate the use of Latin, particularly as spells. A base understanding of even select Latin words and phrases will help many of these kids (and I dare say adults) later. And I will agree with other commentators here that her works have encouraged many to take up recreational reading (though it is irrelevant to the case itself).

I would expect the judge to be a bit more impartial though. And, being so biased in the matter as to make such statements, recuse himself and pass this case to another judge more unbiased. Not being particularly familiar with the specific claim by Rowling of plagiarism, I could envision how the “gibberish” nature of the works could come into play and swing the decision.

By not doing so, Judge Patterson only opens the case to an appeal.

Not good jurisprudence in my opinion.

Alex Wolf, New York, USA

I think many of the posters are perhaps in danger of forgetting what we are talking about here. The judge said some of the words out of context were gibberish, not that the works were.
These books have been phenomenal my 18 year old has avidly followed all the books since the first came out my 10 year old is just finishing the last book. They are written for young people and as such have been read by millions surely anything that encourages children to read is a good thing.
She is only trying to protect her intellectual property, she cannot be faulted for this.
The snide comments about the worth of the books smack a bit of elitist snobbery, the books are what they are, great fun and thoroughly enjoyable.

Gavin, Glasgow, Scotland

The books are just not that good.

EA Pappas, Washington, DC

The judges opion of a fictional piece of work isn't the issue here, nor is it the reason of the lawsuit. Plagiarism is. 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.

Liz, Greenville, SC

Harry Potter's world is like seeing the world we live in today a little differently. True: spells, incantations, and the overall themes of the book maybe be fanciful, that is EXACTLY what they're meant to be. What one without an imagination would call gibberish is what one with an imagination would call genius.

She is a gifted writer that has influenced people of ALL ages. People that support her are very right to do so because she has written a book that has influenced the WORLD. It's not just printed in one language! This is a world wide phenomenon and should not be put into the hands of one judge. This judge did not understand the first half of the book that he read to his grandchildren, but maybe his grandchildren took up the book, read it, and fell in love with it.
These books inspire friendship, compassion, loyalty, love, family..the list goes on and on. Maybe thats the point!
My opinion is that IF an encyclopedia NEEDS to be made, LET HER MAKE IT! They are her books!

Joanne, Lewisville, Texas

And all the Harry Potter fans came out of their caves to defend their 5th grade level super series, which has made the selfish and egomaniac Rowling pounce on a poor librarian that was a simply a fan who wanted to make the world more accessible and prevent him from publishing his hard work, no matter what the terms. Harry Potter is a crappy book series, anyone who appreciates real literature will know so. It's a good introduction for children into complex reading, but some people take it too far. THIS, is too far. I can't think of any author with such a wide readership that shows such disdain for his or her fans.

Albert, Arizona,

If your child reads H.P. because they want to, be thankful, they could do a whole lot worse.

William, Jacksonville, Fl

I read all of the "Harry Potter..."series. In my view these books reflect the current intellectual level in UK. The characters are two-dimensional, the plot is weak and the "success" of the books has been build on clever marketing campaings and the hype. To keep the hype on, J.K. Rowling keeps coming out with revelations that "Dumbeldore is gay". Would any one with intellegence care? One thing is for sure, J.K. Rowling isn't the writer of the same scale as C.S. Lewis. Her books are the fast food for your kids mind and have nothing to offer for their soul. And no amount of hype will change that.

Oleg, Toronto, Canada

How "out of touch." I assume that he would call it a "work of art" if it were a non-fiction work. All things said, he must prefer the language in the pre-teen RL Stine series.

Greg, Murfreesboro, TN

I read the first Harry Potter. Found it very imaginative but definitely written on a pre-teen level insofar as plot, a bit higher in terms of vocabulary, and not particularly well-written overall. It's certainly not on a par with Tolkien or C S Lewis.

Too bad the fellow she's is suing didn't write a satire, which would have had more worth than an "encyclopedia."

Dai Alanye
http://alanye.com/

Dai Alanye, New Lyme, Ohio

Gosh, Joe let's all let you review our work to see if its "worthy". You are closed minded. She wrote a book which is FICTION and made money. This does not make her money "unworthy" and she is entitled to defend against people stealing her work. CS LEWIS based his books the Bible, but also portrays a witch, goblims, and other mythical evil creatures. I guess he is unworthy too.

Deb, Pittsburgh , PA

"I agree with the judge. In context, the language in the book is jibberish to me"

OUT of context the words are gibberish. IN context they're clearly and obviously defined and easily understood by anyone with a 5th grade reading level. If your or this judge couldn't understand it then there is more wrong with your brain and reading comprehension skills than there are with the Harry Potter books.

Kyle, Derwood, MD

The judge is correct in his opinion. The Harry Potter books are gibberish. I've a life-long love of reading, own several hundred books(wish I had room for more) and collect childrens books of the past. That said, Rowling's books are too long, too complicated, and downright silly. Gibberish!

Meredith H., Fairfield, Connecticut

Joe

"I would not want my children to believe in witches, etc." - i dont think that is the point of the "novels".

i would agree that she isnt the most gifted of authors but she has encouraged millions of children to read and she deserves credit for that - i dont think she actually sees herself as being the next wordsworth! the success she has achieved is deserved because people went out and bought her books. sounds like you're jealous to me - how pathetic.

DR, Bangor,

If he finds the exquisite prose in Harry Potter to be "gibberish," perhaps the judge should seek remedial reading lessons.

Kathleen Egan, Cincinnati, OH, USA

"If the judge is not smart enough to follow - and LOVE - Harry Potter, he should not have the amount of power that his position boasts."

Wow, just wow.

That statement is truly breathtaking in it's complete and total ignorance of judges and impartiality and the law and overall stupidity.

If the judge in question professed a love for Harry Potter, they would have to recuse themselves from the case as they would have an outrageous and obvious bias towards Rowling.

Trevor Valle, Los Angeles,

I agree with the judge. In context, the language in the book is jibberish to me, but only because I dont enjoy that kind of story. I also dont get Picasso paintings and rap . However, that doesnt mean its not entertaining to some, nor do I mean to be offensive when I observe it as such.

Bob, Tulsa,

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

If this judge is not smart enough to follow - and LOVE - Harry Potter, he should not have the amount of power that his position boasts. JK should not have to see other people profit from copying, paraphrasing, or reorganizing her genious work, and if this is happening, she should absolutely have a say in the matter. If the first book confused him, I don't know what he would have thought of the last four. Hopefully his grandchildren were smart enough to continue reading on their own!

Jenny, Chicago, IL

Expelliamus your honour. Riddikulus!

Steve, Rickmansworth,

wow, that quote is taken out of context. He is refering to the fact that she makes up words in her books. The judge did not call the storylines gibberish and makes a valid point that an encyclopedia would assist those who can remember what the hell "wingardium leviosa" means (apologies to all those hardcore Harry Potter fans if I spelled it wrong, I dont have a Harry Potter encyclopedia to double check the spelling).

Chris C., Springfield, MA

Mike from Washington: You're on to something!
"There's no such thing as bad publicity!" Now that the last enstallment is out, How shall I keep my works in the public eye?
If she had sat back and not caused a stink, another book published with a limited advertising budget. But now, his book gets priceless publicity, her works get priceless publicity.
And next year JK and VA will collaborate on the Delux Potter set including the lexicon, available for Christmas 2009.

Bryan Swauger, San Diego , CA, USA

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.
the judge is trying to sway the decision which is wrong. she deserve to earn from her work and i want a jk written version of this book not a fan book

tom, southend on sea, united kingdom

"This case is not about money" - who's kidding who? Sure JKR says she will donate proceeds of her lexicon to charity - after everybody else associated with the publication has taken their slice out of the gravy train. And the charitable film production company has decided to split the last book into two films - twice the profits there then. Oh and isn't JKR's husband in the publishing firm? And don't they need to sustain their revenue now the story books. I loved the books - I hate the naked commercialism.
Since Harry Potter doesn't really exist - there is only what JKR wrote about him - how can any commentary on her books not be accused of plagiarism? Save me from the sentimental hypocrisy.

John, Moscow, Russia

Maybe a reference guide _would_ be useful. That still doesn't make it OK for someone to rip off the author's prose without her express provision to provide it

Michelle, Birmingham, UK

I trust the councils in England will ask for some cash or sue JK Rowling for using their towns and village place names in her Harry Potter books. Many names coming from the midlands. Its amazing that people think that 'theirs' is an original thought!!

lindiwe, sevenoaks,

Perhaps the English ability to understand language is the problem here. The judge did not say her "work" was "gibberish," but that "the words would be gibberish in any other context." How many normal sentences contain the words "Dumbledore," "Quidditch," and "Diagon Alley?" In this case, it is your article title that is gibberish and the spin you've put on the story that is misleading.

R S Quick, Chicago, IL

JK Rowling is no JRR Tolkein or CS Lewis, though she imitated the first and middle initial name thing rather nicely. Funny after all these years how this whole copywright flap has never occurred over Middle Earth and Narnia. I'm glade to finally hear others referring to her writing as "shallow" and "gibberish," something I tried to explain to my daughters while they were young, and what they finally discovered "on their own" as teenagers. Sounds like JK's owl has come home to roost. Now that the Potter series is complete, I'll be interested to see how well her next literary endevour is received.

Robert, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA

Hmmmm those people who are criticising it as gibberish worry me. Especially the ones who claim to be of the middle, educated classes with position in the hierarchy . My working class seven year old son read the first one when he was seven - and understood and enjoyed every word. Get a judge who can read beyond Dr Suess.

JK is right to defend her work.

Neil Scott, Glasgow, Scotland

Guess he's never read Dr. Seuss to his grandkids then.

Sean, New York, NY

I enjoyed the first three books, but I found that "Goblet of Fire" was beginning to be unenjoyable reading. As a writer, I admire Rowling's rich and detailed fantasy world. However, as a writer, I wish she had cut each work to 150,000 words.

There is a sound rule in writing fiction: a line should either advance the plot, reveal character, or get a laugh. If it doesn't do any of these things, it should not be included. Rowling is the victim of her own successes. Who dares edit her?

No judge is stupid, but judges are used to reading legal texts, which are rarely gripping bedtime reading. However, judges are used to cutting through the miasma of words to make sound points. The judge made a sound one. J.K. Rowling's works are too long and confusing for a clear first reading.

Gregory Baker, Odenton, Maryland, USA

Discussions of the quality of Rowling's writing are irrelevant (but I have to disagree with those who fault her work). The proposed encyclopedia is a standard reference work which is entirely permissible under reasonable notions of fair use. Ms. Rowling's complaints that the book will undermine sales of her own work-in-progress are absurd - if anything, her book's sales will be enhanced by prior publication of the lesser, less authoritative work. More egregious are her obvious efforts to engender animosity in her fans to poor Mr. Vander Ark by suggesting that she is so distressed by his work that she cannot write her own. This is outrageous, despicable conduct by someone I once found admirable.

Ed Pevensie, NYC, NY, USA

I'm 60 years old and I love the Harry Potter books--anxiously awaited each one. This "judge" doesn't have the intelligence or imagination to follow them?? That is way scarier than Lord Voldemort. In my humble opinion I don't believe he's fit to be a judge, certainly not for a case of this type. I feel sorry for his grandchildren.

Susan Schoneboom, Omaha, NE

Well, the judge is right.

Douglas, Prattville, AL

"Gibberish" - That's a typical Muggle response :-) There is no way JK Rowling is greedy. She has an emotional attachment to her work. As an author, I feel like my work is an extension of me; JK probably feels the same. Anything a person dedicates 10 years of that person's life into developing, it becomes more than just a source of income, but a part of the fabric of who that person is. She has donated millions to charity. This court case is not about the money but her defending of her own property. I personally think she is one of the greatest writers of this era. Although the world has spent billions on her world of Harry Potter, we are still in debt to her for creating a work that has gotten so many children into reading. I auplaud JK for standing up for what she belives in.

Marty, Boaz, AL, Alabama

When did Judges become literary critics?

Emily, New York,

What do you call the guy that ranked last in his class at law school? Your Honor.

Jim, West Hartford, CT

Assuming the Bible is a work of fiction is obviously your right as a person to feel that way. But to say the Bible was written for fear, or for some social control for the masses is a statement that is clearly made out of pure ignorance, and fear. If one does any research on the Bible and actually tries to understand it, the Bible is not a book of fear but one of love.

Aaron, Ogden, Utah

Clearly, very few people read the entire article. The headline just isn't enough.

As for the judge's comments, they are typical for the courtroom. Judges say all kinds of things just to see how the clients and attorneys will respond. They often love to play dumb and love to play devils advocate. The favorable thing to note is that the judge made an attempt to become somewhat familiar with her work and in the context of reading it to her target audience (i.e. his grandchildren). He didn't have to know her work at all to make a legal judgement on the case. The judge only needs to know the law inside and out, because that is his job and that is what is in question. Maybe those of you from the UK are used to something different. Anyhow, my hope is that he concentrates on the legal merits more than the world of Potter.

Brooke, Atlanta, GA

I find it hilarious that adults are complaining that the Harry Potter novels, a series intended for children, are "difficult to keep the reader's attention", "difficult to understand", "too complicated" and "confusing". I would be ashamed to admit that I couldn't understand a book not only intended for children, but read and enjoyed by millions of them. Stick to Spot the Dog.

Milika, London, England

Well said. The bible, which is also fiction, is full of gibberish. What are the so called miracles but acts of magic seen through the eyes of naive people 2000 years ago. What is even worse is that whereas JKR's works are purely for fun and to excite the immagination, the bible has been re-worked and re-written by the Catholic Church in order to be used to control people through fear. JKR has produced works that have not only encouraged but in many instances introduced children to the joys of reading.

Victor Marriott, Sarasota, FL

I have read hundreds of books, from the classics to trashy detective novels. I found Ms. Rowling to be an excellent story teller, and had no problem understanding her works, as I accepted, from the beginning, that this was a world of her making...just like Lord of the Rings, with it's own verbiage. I think one has to have the ability to read and comprehend to appreciate her works, and, obviously, some of the folks making comments here can do neither (along with the judge). If you want to read for education or edification, go to a university library; if you want to read for entertainment, and a break from the mundane and ordinary, the Harry Potter books are right up your alley. She never said she was trying to change the world, just to tell a story that she created. People need to get over applying their own expectations to someone else's work.

Barbara Ulery, Phoenix, USA/AZ

I am assuming that those with such scathing remarks about the works of JK Rowling are the people of the world who are so straight laced they have never heard of fantasy. I personally believe that everyone in the world has their own right to create or read whatever they like. If you don't like these works then don't read them, period. Do not make out that those of us who did enjoy them immensely are abnormal. Maybe we just know how to slow down and enjoy life and have no need to try turn fantasy into reality.

Ruth Martin, Calgary, Canada

She's a greedy woman. A few billion is not enough? Get over it, it IS gibbersih, albeit very profiatble gibberish - not a a religious tome.

Jer, New York, USA

i also tried to read the books. i manage no more than a couple of pages. i'm baffled by its shallowness. pages and pages of complete nothing.

but it has been a sucess. and it belongs to the writer. every penny of it belongs to her.

even being gibberish someone else is trying to make money out of it. and it belongs to her. just that.

jose, st helier, jersey

Good for you Leeroy. I wholeheartedly agree.

Kyle, Monroe, USA/ NY

If a judge is reading books like that silliness, he does not belong on the bench!!

Wayne, Frisco, TX

It was ok for her to "borrow" from other authors all these years.
What a hypocrite! RK Rowling, your time has come and gone ... now go.

DMahoney, Phoenix, AZ

This awful woman has been used to introduce witchcraft and wizardry into the lives of the very young and impressionable. The Bible gives us clear warnings about dabbling in the spirit world. The view that demons do not exist is wrong but that of course is the view of many naturalists and skeptics of the Bible as well as most unbelievers. Demons are personal beings intent on evil and manifest themselves from the spirit world in various forms. An educational study can be made at the site of Dr Arnold g Fruchtenbaum (Ariel.org). Download "Demonology: The Doctrine of Demons". His work is excellent and provides clear understanding. This woman has been used by Satan to introduce kids into the realm of the occult and its hidden powers. Demons and occultism work hand in hand. Involving hidden knowledge of the past,present or future. Makes promises of extra power which attracts people to the occult world and provides the ability to have hidden knowledge and understanding - witchcraft.

sheila , Ulladulla, NSW Australia

not having read any of the Potter books, but having a teen age boy who has, I think they are exactly what they claim to be. A fantasy novel. And fantasy novels usually have distinct differences than real life. These books are never going to be on the same level as Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, Stephen King and others but they have gotten a generation to read something other than text books.

Eddie Johnson, Goodletttsville, Tennessee

Whenever I see an adult conspicuously (as they often do) reading a Harry Potter book I wonder why they are so proud to be seen reading a book pitched at 11year olds. Maybe the judge has had the same experience or is well read so that is failure to appreciate the work in question is similar to that lof adults who can't quite get the hang of the teletubbies having evolved fully functioning adult critical faculties

Esther, London,

Leeroy has shown in his post his severe lack of imagination. Maybe he was deprived of such wonders as a child, but I certainly do not think other children should be deprived if it encourages them to read. There is plenty of time to learn in school, but no reason to burn them out an sooner than they will be in college. It's closed mindedness such as this that will prevent society from thinking out-of-the-box and progressing as a whole. Imagination is the key to progress.

Lindsay, Coatesville, PA

Leeroy says:

"Let's show our kids the theory of relativity for some real magic. How about some thing that will enrich their minds with something that is positive instead of super marketing franchises?"

How about letting our children be children and reading childrens books, with no reason other than entertainment?

Sarah, Derby, UK

Another example of the clinical morons inherent in the US legal system. The approach of the jusdge typefies the reason for the lack of home grown cultural talent in the US. Ignorance. To Leeroy below , I doubt your children at the age of 10 would understand the theory of relativity, nor would they be remotely interested. However if they do on all levels then let me offer to pay for their physics doctorates at Cambridge.

James, London,

If we are persecuting authors for "made up" words then let's cut to the chase...what about Dr. Seuss? I wonder if the judge has read any of his books? And since we are going that far, what about all the made up words in movies that I am sure that the judge wouldn't prevent his grandchildren from watching....hmm....Star Wars....Spongbob....Alice in Wonderland....ect. Had anyone ever heard of a JEDI before George Lucas? Get real. The books are great, as an adult, I own all of them and enjoy reading them over from time to time. They are full of creativity and fun and ALL have a moral message in them that children should learn. I think people are angry because JK took the battle of good vs evil away from God vs Satan.

Faith, Daytona Beach, Florida

wonderful--miss rowling is accusing people of "plundering" her prose!?!? what prose? while the story lines and characters are interesting, the prose is unquestionably trash

Kenneth, Dallas, TX

Giving power to children via magic makes them realize that they have the ability if only in their minds of changing their enviroment to match their actual moods. When Harry can levitate, and his friends can cast spells to make people shrink to frogs a sense of justice becomes possible that in most if not all cases children don't have access to. Leave the kids alone, let them dream. Any book that allows grandparents to read the book with more enthusiasm is o.k. by me.

Charles, Euless, Texas, U.S.A.

Dear Michael, Cincinnati,
"Pure Drivel"? Perhaps that why she was shortlisted for Time person of the year 2008?

Philip, Osaka, Japan

A judge who finds Harry Potter books too difficult? To quote Groucho Marx ,"Fetch me a child of three".

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The Judge should recuse himself from this case.
And then, based on his confessed lack of reading comprehension ability, should retire from the bench. Most lawyers introduce more ficton into their briefs than JK Rowling has put into her books.
If he cannot read a children's book, filled with allusions from classical mythology and consistent characters, then how can he possibly have the strength of intellect to read truly complex and involved arguments of the law?

hunter, houston, texas

struggling to care quite frankly.

BOB, Basildon, Essex

Doesn't she have enough money already to start her own space program?
And the judge is correct, btw.

sg, malibu,

I was entertained by the comments from the fellow that thought we should be having our kids read "the theory of realtivity for some real magic". I guess he doesn't realize that many of todays real cutting edge scientists have read science fiction and gotten inspiration from the fancy of others imagination.

I guess the real problem is when you can tell the difference between Harry Potter and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Joseph Wood, McKinney, TX,

The judge's personal view is nor germane. It doesn't matter what he thinks. It only matters what the law says; copyright law. It his job to determine whether the publication infringes on Ms. Rowlings copyright. Thar's all. Whether her lexicon is gibberish or not, to him, his grandchildren or anyone else is irrelevant.

He needs to apply the law and keep his personal opinions to himself.

Nicholas Borelli, Wilton, USA/Connecticut

To A Fischer, Providence, United States,

Dumbledore is NOT gibberish. Your ignorance shows in your comments. Perhaps you have lost your sense of wonder and curiosity, and, in turn, have forgotten how to use a dictionary. A dumbledor, sans the e on the end, is another name for bumblebee.

As for a judge who cannot understand fantasy, alas, he is one who has been on the bench too long. He seems to be out of touch with his 'inner child.' I wonder how balanced one who has lost a connection to his soul is in his judgments.

I, too wonder when Ms. Rowling is going to move beyond Harry Potter. She seems as stuck in her ego as is the judge. He can't see fantasy nor can she see reality. She does not seem to be moving beyond HP and seems to do all she can to stay in the media, even if it means tarnishing the appeal of HP.

(Frankly, I thought the last book was a wash... full of cliches.)

Perhaps she can come up with something more orignal as fund raiser for charity.

Katherine, Central Virginia, United States

The HP books are absolute garbage. What do you expect from a former "bag lady" (love that one from a previous poster).

Very poorly written and difficult to keep the readers' attention. I will admit that there is a multitude of "mystical stuff" within the books that provides great page filler for these long, drawn out boring works. But that one trait does not pass for quality children's literature.

Why are there no modern day Rudyard Kiplings out there? Instead we get this politically correct rubbish ("Dumbledore is gay" says Rawling) that leaves a vacuum in our children's souls, only to be filled by the next HP volume of garbage. An endless landfill-esque process of piling garbage on top of more garbage, lead by the pied piper of literary trash herself, JK Rowling.

Alex in DC, Washington, DC

When the very same words have sat on the lexicon website for years, and been praised and utilised by JK Rowling, it is stricking that the moment it involves money she jumps into action to protect her rights. Weren't her rights violated when they were printed on the website? It seems these websites have promoted and publicized her works, and followed her every move like a little puppy dog and that was fine so long as she made the money. She wrote a good story, but her books are hardly great works of literature. She needs to get a life now and perhaps not be so flattered by herself. Work on another book, have a cup of tea, move on....

Lynn, Philadelphia, USA

Well, Andrew Milner, if the judget doesn't like fiction or fairytales then the Bible would probably suit him.

Don't bring your insulting views about religion into a debate which is about something else entirely.

Anne, London,

Why is she so upset about this? Unless she was planning a similar reference, which sounds unlikely, the most significant effect of this book will be to boost awareness and sales of her other books.

On an another note, to defend Tolkien against an earlier comment: Tolkien didn't borrow from the same "genre tropes" as Rowling. He borrowed liberally from Germanic/Scandinavian myth and legend, which was by no means as ubiquitous in popular culture back in the 50's as LOTR is now.

Mike, Washington DC, USA

Maybe gibberish in the same way as Lewis Carroll, a reference guide would be a good thing and anything that Jo Rowling writes will blow Vander Ark out of the water. That being said, I wonder how much his work fueled debate on fan sites and how much overall his work contributed to Jo Rowling's bottom line? I can see both sides of this, it's sort of like comparing the Bible to Strong's Concordance I think.

Vicky, York,

Has anyone been following this entire story? I offer the following:
1 - JK wants to write an encyclopedia in 1-2 years and donate all proceeds to charity. That being said she feels that this Lexicon book will undercut the money she would be able to donate because her book would cost more than Vander Ark's when published and people wouldn’t purchase it because Vander Ark’s is available. This is not about her making money for herself!
2 - Vander Ark must have known there would be a problem because it has been stated that he included in his contract with RDR they cover any legal expenses that might arise with the publishing of the book.

Melisk, Woodbrige, USA/Virginia

I have read all of the Harry Potter books and enjoyed them. Nevertheless, there are many people who do not like them. It's a matter of taste, I guess. There are enough of us who like them, however, to have made J.K. Rowling quite wealthy.

Richard Stevens, Fredericksburg, USA/Virginia

I don't think the issue is whether Harry Potter is good or not.

J.K Rowling has written the most popular series of children's books possibly since Enid Blyton and it's wrong for this "Vander Ark" to use her creation to make money for himself. End of.

Laura, Cheshire,

Good for that judge! People should start reading material that will help with the world today not about some fantasy world that is only made up in some former bag lady's head.
Let's show our kids the theory of relativity for some real magic. How about some thing that will enrich their minds with something that is positive instead of super marketing franchises? (booger tasting gelly beans and video games?)"I could not read the book...blah blah...but loved the movies!" That is how stupid the world is becoming. How many times have we heard that about some illiterate fool that though "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" or "A confederacy of dunces" were better films than their original book counter parts?

Leeroy Jenkins, Los Angeles, California

A district judge needs a referece guide to a childrens book which most kids under 12 can understand, i think i know the reason the court case will take so long

Pete, Newport, UK

It a judge cannot follow or understand a children's book, he does not belong on the bench!!

John, Plano, TX

"So an American judge finds a book for children complex. Mmmm."

oh ha ha... American bashing... I get it.

Despite the casual dismissal of the judges "gibberish" comment he does absolutely have a point. The story arc spans 7 large volumes and takes place in an almost completely invented realm. There are tons of invented words and dozens of characters that came and go. Words like Dumbledore, Alohomora, and Wingardium Leviosa are nothing but gibberish outside the book.

If people can't see the utility of a guide to the Harry Potter world then perhaps they are extremely good at being consumed by fantasy. The grandfather judge must be too American to get it.

Anyway the real point is that Rowling is trying squash fair use and a competative marketplace of ideas. This sort of overly broad copyright claim is what is locking down media and stultifying free expression. We should be glad this unimaginative judge is sympathetic to the creation of guides.

A Fischer, Providence, United States

It's about time someone called the literary trash she compiles for what it is. The ONLY good thing about the series is that it inspired children to read...other than than ....PURE DRIVEL!

michael, cincinnati, ohio

I think JK wants to print her own version of the book in question.
Because lets face it I dont think she has another decent book in her. May as well repeat the same rubbish shes been doing for the past 10 years.

J.Grisham, London,

It's funny how you can always tell those who haven't read the books ...

starling, Lancaster,

who cares. the books suck anyway.

mike, Columbia,

Call the judges grandchildren as witnesses and ask them if they think the book is gibberish. I bet they disagree with and are able to expalin the so called hard to follow world to their grandfather.

RH, Santa Monica, CA

So an American judge finds a book for children complex. Mmmm.

Mark Jones, Birmingham, UK

The judge is clearly a nincompoop!

John, Kent,

My six year old understood the Potter books and could explain them in detail to the judge, but then she'd just have to do so again five minutes later.

Jackson, Columbus,

I greatly enjoyed the books, and at 18 I grew up reading from book one. I find it very difficult to believe that a Judge could not comprehend the "difficult" language of a children's novel.

Tom Dashel, Norfolk,

I got to page 20 before I had to stop reading the first HP novel. It was terribly badly written. My family on the other hand love the novels and have read them all. I did enjoy the films though.

I can see JK's POV, but in the increasingly complex world of HP an A-Z guide would be useful, just as it is for Tolkein fans.

Dr Nick Ashley, Huntingdon,

Can you all take a look at yourselves? An article about Harry Potter and it has more comments than all of the world's news! Get a life!

Will Teasdale, Manchester, England

Marcus -- Chevrolet may not let other people make Chevrolets, but it has no right to prevent other people from writing books on how to fix a Chevrolet, for example.

Annotated guides to literature are common and are not restricted by the copyright held by the author of the original work. This is not an adaptation over which the author does have control. Her assertion of control would prevent discussion or criticism of her work in book reviews.

Moreover, does the guide prevent her from writing her own definitive guide? Let her write her own and let the book buying public decide which it prefers.

Plaid Robertson, Berwick,

It is quite irritating that so many people accuse Rowling of stealing from either literary tradition or Tolkian for the Harry Potter books. Both she and Tolkian used well-worn genre tropes which cannot be identified as the copyright of a specific author - in fact, they have been used countless times by a variety of authors are various points in history. Their art was to present them within the framework of original narratives. There are also substantial differences between Rowling and Tolkian's work, and neither author holds the copyright to the whole fantasy genre, or these tropes.

What she's arguing about is someone reproducing VERBATIM the material in the books, just in a different order (no new narrative, and no substantial scholarly material), and without due acknowledgment. It is not just plagiarism, but a prostitution of her work.

Also, if the judge didn't UNDERSTAND the books then I have increased fears for the American justice system.

Ella, London,

If the judge can't understand the book how is he qualified to judge it?

David, Orlando, Florida

While it is true that this judge might be an idiot, it would be important to hear the tone of voice he used when he made this comment. It was likely not offensive in context. I think his use of the word jibberish probably refers to the abundant usage of made-up words.
He is probing the argument to see what her reply is to his suggestion that a guide is a useful item. She should argue that while a guide might be a fine idea, the excerpting of her book and re-packaging it into a refernce guide and claiming the work is original is not within the law. The only person entitled to make such a book is Ms. Rowling. She will win this case, if not outright, then on appeal. Her rights of ownership are clear.

Peter, Los Angeles, California

Under the law, it is permitted to use excerpts in order to do a review or a parody, and it is permitted to take the IDEAS in a book. But when the excerpts are so extensive that a large part of the compendium book totally relies upon them, beyond the permitted purpose of review, then that is a violation.
For instance, you can write a book about the Beatles's songs. In your own words, you can say what the words of Strawberry Fields Forever meant to John Lennon, and how it was inspired. And you may excerpt PORTIONS of the songs's lyrics to make your point. BUT, if you print the lyrics to the entire song, that goes beyond a mere excerpt and YOU MUST GET PERMISSION FROM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BEATLES OR IT IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. So I think the judge will require that the writer must rewrite J.K. Rowlings's words in HIS OWN WORDS in most of the cases in which he lifted her words. I hope the penalty is negiglible, because the author acted in good faith, and thought it was legal.

R. Ashton, Hyder , AK USA

The fact is that her books are charming and well told and have delighted millions, this fiftysomething included (if you can put up with the very bad grammar and punctuation - I'm afraid her copy editors have sadly let her down). But to see a judge describing it as gibberish when he's read one half of the first (and easiest) book says a lot for American judges.

Andy Armitage, Hebron, Whitland, West Wales, UK

The average ten year old can understand the complexities of the first Harry Potter novel, but this judge can't? How did someone who must be educationally subnormal become a judge? Don't they have exams over there?

Iain, Canterbury,

This reminds me of the Da Vinci case in 2006: [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch) that saw the claimants lose their plagiarism case. Maybe this court shall use the above as being persuasive but in my opinion the books that contains the root ideas are not licensed but sold outright therefore there is no theft: as for plagiarism if the books are already open to the world then to steal (sic) from many is research!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/719.html

Philip, Lisburn, Northern Ireland

Rowlings might "write well" as many reviewers have said, but it doesn't mean that the actual stories are any good. England's writers have produced far better books for young (and old!) audiences than the "gibberish" or whatever you want to call it, that Rowlings pumps out. Just a bunch of junk jazzed up with magic, sorcery, and wizards. How exciting.

Kay, Oregon, USA

If the words are gibberish--that is, completely made up--then they are, word for word, protected by copyright. Still, both van Ark and Rowling are fools for not collaborating. Think of it from J.K's POV: huge new source of income with very little effort.

Jack, Iowa City, Iowa

The idea that Rowling merely bowdlerised Tolkien is absurd, and anyone suggesting this probably hasn't understood either writer. Tolkein's action takes place in another Earth, like ours but clearly different. Rowling's stories all start and finish in our world (at least, an English world recognisable to most English people). The accusation that she has "merely" adapted ideas used by others is hardly an accusation at all, unless it is levelled at just about any writer who has used themes drawn from folklore, including Tolkien himself. Whether or not the Harry Potter books are great literature time may tell. However they have encouraged thousands if not millions of children to read, and promote a view of human decency and tolerance. It is sad that an American judge finds them difficult to follow - on the other hand to those of us on this side of the pond American law and the American legal system often seem gibberish too. They are very English books.

Joe Higman, Plymouth,

Good Lord, I can't beieve all the fuss. I am far from being an 85 year old, but I did start reading an H.P. book to my young God Daughter, only to discover that the writing style is atrocious - or rather, it lacks any style at all. Having said that, I am also astonished, therefore, at the number of adults who claim that J. K. Rowlings is their favourite author - I agree with Bill that this smacks of faddism. Don't these people read anything else more meaningful, or that might give them a proper insight into human (not wizards') emotions?

Peter, Leeds, UK

Frankly - apart from a very rich author , a bunch of highly paid lawyers and the fawning media - who cares?

Bob, Essex, England

It is always encouraging to hear from liberal Americans like Joe from Seattle. "Throw him in jail"... I am deeply stirred by the effusive leniency of this suggestion, where everybody else would have gone for hanging, beheading or even both...

Jochen Berndt, Bremen, Germany

Has she not made enough money?, this argument of copyright is nothing more than economic protectionism.

Clive, Dartfrod, UK

rowling created the characters.
rowling owns the characters.

she therefore gets to control them. chevrolet doesn't let other car companies make a direct copy of their corvette. microsoft doesn't have to allow people to alter/profit from *their* product.... why should rowling have to?

marcus, las vegas, usa/nevada

To Mr. Billy Barnett:

That a book series spanning seven volumes and many thousands of pages is wildly popular with people of various ages and cultural backgrounds is not a fad; it's a phenomenon. That you didn't personally enjoy it doesn't mean that you have better taste. It simply means that you have different taste. Kindly find another basis for your sense of superiority. This one isn't credible.

Spoonfighter, Denver , Colorado USA

Chris in Dublin Ohio - the evidence is that of 3400 odd entries in this work over 3000 of them where lifted straight out of the books. Explain how less than 12% is "huge"!
This isn't about money or the rights to produce a book about Harry Potter - indeed JK supported this guys web site. It's about passing off someone elses work as your own.

James, Glasgow,

Seem the judge isn't into fiction or fairy stories. Wonder if he reads the Bible.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Japan

Isn't it ironic that another author sued Miss Rowling for allegedly lifting her characters and her names for them, (i.e. muggles and Harry Potter), and she lost her case.

Karen, Poulsbo, Washington, USA

The heart of this article is about an encyclopedia based on the Potter series not authorized by the the creator of the Potter series.
The Judge honestly declared that the words and concepts of the Potter novel would under different circumstances be gibberish to the reader. For example, a newspaper talking about the Tsunami in Indonesia a few years back, written in the Rowling style would had offend many people reading about it. But within the context and boundaries of a novel, it is alright. Or another example, the assassination of President Kennedy or any other major world shaking event. But as a story line for personal enjoyment, it is well within its natural environment. See. He meant no insult. Let us not confuse legal reasoning with logic of a novel as each has its particular purpose and role to play.

However, to take word for word, concepts for concepts, ideas for ideas directly from the Potter series and compressing it into a encyclopedic work does trasspass laws of Intellectual property. Mr. Ark should have sought out and corraborated with Ms. Rowlings. Now he is faced with an allegation of plagurism. He trusted the wrong publisher. Now he is in trouble.

Why it has taken so long for Ms. Rowlings to create a simular work is puzzling. It has yet to be made manifest. I for one would like to see this supposed manuscript, for this encyclopedia, Ms. Rowlings has proposed. I doubt it exists. But I could be wrong.

I am highly offended by some posts that assumes that there should be an upper limit to how much money a person can make. That's rubbish. There is no upper limit to how much a government can tax you, so why shouldn't it be likewise for earning a living?
As long as a person has done no harm to anyone else, then why should there be any limits whatsoever. And what right does a person have to tell somebody else how to spend the money they worked so hard to produce. Heck, Mr. Ark could easily earn a living as a dishwasher or a kindergarten teacher. If he lacks the imagination to write a novel, then he should find something else to do which he can succeed at. You that have read and enjoyed the Potter series, have no need for such an encyclopedia, for if you truely love the work, you memory would serve as that encyclopedia. Your defense of Mr. Ark is misguided loyalty at best.

Ms Rowlings is protecting her intellectual property.
Mr. Ark was rather badly advised and his hard work would have been for nothing.
And the Judge is being crucified because of a knee jerk reaction of people unable to read between or beyond the lines.

Monroe Usiness, rochester, ny,

It's theft. She has the rights to the characters in the book, and he knows this. Throw him in jail!

Joe, Seattle, WA

"I do not see any difference between reference works for Shakespeare and the work of J K Rowling."

The difference is Shakespeare has been dead for a few hundred years. Needless to say, his copy rights would have expired quite a while ago.

Robert, Harlingen, Texas

If the judge didn;t exactly say it he should have said it. Uncommonly good taste. It is gibberish. Tells you all you need to know by the sheep-like tendencies of the fad-prone modern world, all desperately in search of the next big thing.

Billy Barnett, HK,

The headline here is VERY misleading if you read the judge's actual quote. He said that the book was filled with names and words that WOULD BE gibberish "in any OTHER context." That is a very factual and simple statement which doesn't imply ANYTHING about the storyline. I don't care one way or the other about Harry Potter, but I'm an ex-journalist who hates to see the facts so badly misrepresented.

David McElroy, Birmingham, AL USA

"Probably a Clinton appointee"

Uhhh, no. Reagan. He is, however, 85 years old. That "appointed for life" thing might not always work out too well.

Ralph Malph, Peoria, Illinois

"anything substantive outside a legal brief"? News flash - her books, while fun to read, are not "substantive." They are pure gibberish and gobblygook. Fun to read trash novels - yes; but nevertheless not noteworthy from a literary standpoint. Our grandchildren will not know who Rowling is, or read her works.

Bill , va beach, va

How much more money does she want? This guy helped keep readers interested while it took Rowling years to finish the series. Give us a break!

Susan, Cary,

If this judge seriously couldn't follow the simple plotlines and characters in a children's book, he has no business sitting on the bench in the first place... a judge with reading comprehension issues?

Only in America...

hsing lee, N Vancouver, BC

I've read the entire series. The first book is so easy, an 11 year-old could understand it. If the judge finds the first book of Harry Potter "hard to follow," then he has demonstrated that he probably doesn't have the intellectual capacity to be a judge in the first place, much less work on compex copywrite cases.

Mr Happy Man, Monroe, Washington, USA

Chris from Dublin: if you were talking about the Lexicon website, you'd be right, but I'm afraid the book has cut most of that analysis.

starling, Lancaster,

"On the other hand, I believe that Mr. Vander Ark brought legal action against Warner Brothers for using his time line of Harry Potter events in the movies."

No, he didn't, he was happy for them to use it, and he's even been interviewed on the Order of the Phoenix DVD.

starling, Lancaster,

It is Rowling's original work, and it is protected by copyright, so I really don't understand why a rip-off artist would have any standing here. But I can see it will be an important case, since rip-off artists are providing "guides" and cheats to computerized games. If someone creative comes up with an novel idea, then they have the right to protect it for a certain number of years. As far as the judge saying it is gibberish, hey, it wasn't written for his generation and that's his personal opinion. My grandkids love the series, but I couldn't get into it at all.

edward allen, washington, d.c., usa

In fairness to the judge: he did not say the stories are gibberish, he said the specialized words might seem like gibberish in any other context. His point was that a lexicon was needed. Hint hint, JK, was all that he was getting at.

Joe S., Bellevue, WA, USA

“Gibberish”, no, not quite, it is better then that, but not alot. It isn't exactly quality literature. Those who think Rowling is the best thing since sliced bread really aught to broaden their horizons. I think I'll have to side with Matt from Stratham New Hampshire. Although to be fair Tolkien was an accomplished linguist, and Lord of the Rings wasn't exactly juvenile literature. If I had to pick something in the juvenile category that I consider worthy of the term 'literature' I would have to go with something like the Earthsea series by Ursula K Le Guin.

Ben, Redlands, USA / California

What does it matter how much money she has. She has earned it with imaginative writings. I am 70 years old and found it fascinating. She created a whole world. What great imagination. Why should she share her hard earned money with a plagirist? Sounds like communism to me.
Anyone who can inspire millions of children to read books should be congratulated.
The judge must not be too bright if he doesn't understand the books. Definitely has no imagination.

Jeanette, Mandeville, La.

It's called fair use. Mr. Van der Ark took her material and complied it along with a huge amount of his own analysis and transformed it into something interesting, worthwhile, and wholly different from anything Ms. Rowling has created. The money factor is a non-issue what matters is how transformative the new work is and I shutter to think what the legal precedent will be if Rowling wins this case.

Chris, Dublin, Ohio

I don’t know the legal merits of either side of this case, but I do know the work of J K Rowling and the work of Steve Vander Ark, and I find both very good. Mr. Vander Ark has compiled a very good reference work (Lexicon) for those of us who like the Harry Potter series. I do not see any difference between reference works for Shakespeare and the work of J K Rowling. I don’t believe he is selling her work as his own, merely putting facts and figures in an orderly searchable compilation. On the other hand, I believe that Mr. Vander Ark brought legal action against Warner Brothers for using his time line of Harry Potter events in the movies.
And further more, don’t say that Rowing needs to give back to the world, she has been doing that for many years, and not because she can write it off her taxes.
Where do you see any connection to Lord of the Rings in Harry Potter? Good verses Bad.

Larry, Westminster, California

I agree!

Rusty Shackleford, Miami, Florida

It seems suspicious to me that a judge, who normally reads complex, convoluted legal briefs, would find it difficult to read "Harry Potter". Maybe it's too straightforward and clearly written for him.

As far as the case, the compiler (not fair to J.K. to call him an author, as all he is doing is rearranging her work into another format), of the lexicon, should have negotiated permission from J.K. After all, it IS her original work. If he was smart, he would still try to come to an agreement with her.

Rich Wargo, Voorheesville, NY, USA

If he is writing an original guide then I don't see a problem with it and according to the article above, apparently neither does J.K. Rowling. But if what she says is true and he taking word for word her discriptions of the beasts, geography and spells from her books, alphabetizing it and bulleting it, then there is a problem. It is called plagiarism and that is against the law. I own a bookstore and there have been quite a few books about her world, even fan fiction and she hasn't raised a hand against any of it. For her it is about creative rights and not money, she is fighting for her art. She shouldn't be condemned for that.
I feel she is in the right on this issue.

JC, Fayetteville, USA / AR

It would be generous of Rowling to let Ark have a little of the wealth she has earned but it would set a bad precedent that later could come back to haunt her and possibly other authors. Ark's book is a reprint of Rowling's work, she's 100% in the right. The judge will rule in her favor. On the other hand, I hope she gives something back. I believe that there really is a point where you can have too much money.

James, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Like to write that kind of "Gibberish"

Walter R Dixon, Fairhope, AL

This is the same judge who has reutinely ruled against IRS whistle-blowers and others who have questioned the validity of the Infernal Revenue Code.
He has stated that the law is quite clear. Rrrrright!

Kevin K, Detroit,

If kids had any brains, they would not have bought all that Harry Potter trash.

Philip Saenz, Mathis, Texas, USA

The Harry Potter books are HER work and she, along with her publisher, have the right to prevent unauthorized publications that are essentially rehashes of her novel.
This Vander Ark guy needs to get a clue. Did he think that just because he is a big Harry Potter fan that he could just publish a book and profit off it?
It does not matter how much money Ms. Rowling made off the book - I'm not sure why people bring this up. And anyone who compares the Potter books to Lord of the Rings is being ridiculous. Like all fantasy books there are common archetypes and themes but the world and character Rowling created are unique and fantastic.

John, Las Vegas, USA, NV

Rowling did not mind promoting Vander Ark's website, pretty much the same as his reference book, while she benefited monetarily from it.

I, once a big fan, have lost a lot of respect for her.

It's all about money now.

The judge merely is pointing out, as Rowling did herself, that a reference book/website would be useful to keep everything straight.

James , Detroit, Michigan

Billionaire Rowlings is attacking a school librarian who obviously put a lot of research and study into this lexicon--having money sure made Rowlings selfish. You would think with her humble beginnings she wouldnt be so money hungry, wanting to make her own encyclopedia.

shari, sacramento, ca

J K is most likely ticked because she nor her publisher didn't think of this format. She probably more ticked at the publisher because it would up to the publisher to sell more creative formats. However because her first novel was such a success with an overwhelmly demand for a second, the publisher probably felt there wouldn't be any need for a more creative format to stimulate interest. if that second novel wasn't as successful, again, as the first, there would have been enticements for the public to nibble on. But when your pockets are being lined with easy cash whose thinking otherwise.
These are the words of wisdom from my 'ex'. she is employed as a copy reader and is aware of the fundamentals of what a publisher will do to create interest for that patron's cash. In other words, no publisher is going to invest any more than it thinks it will get. And both J K AND HER PUBLISHER GOT 'LOT'S' MORE THAN THEY EVERY THOUGHT, WHAT THEY WERE SELLING ALL THAT GIBBERISH FOR.

BILLY GEE, CLEVELAND, USA/OHIO

Hey Kashif - before you say that someone else lacks intelligence (in this case, a judge) and insinuate that you and your acquaintances possess superior intellect, you might want to double check your spelling. I believe it's "upping" and "minimum."

Mark, Chicago, IL

I agree with the Judge --it's gibberish!

Bryan , Kadena , Okinawa

Harry Potter storylines are gibberish
-----------------
lol, i have said the same thing long time ago, the book is kinda not suitable for a adult.

cty, zhejiang, china

Why should Rowling care... she has all the money in the world already!! Give me a break!

mike, Orange County, CA

I love Harry Potter.But some of the words are hard for me to pronounce.And I am a 46 yr old woman with a Freshman college reading level.So,maybe the other book would be very helpful to the people who have trouble pronouncing the words.

Leslie Hancock, Hardinsburg, United States

“I found it extremely complex,” he said

Harry Potter? Complex? and this guy gets to decide whether someone is guilty of a crime...

seriously we need to start uping the skill requirements to be someone with power in this country.

i've had minumum wage jobs with people smart enough to understand harry potter.

wow

kashif ali, Boston, MA

I am a 64 year old male American judge and have read all of the Harry Potter series. In fact, I read the first one in one sitting over a weekend. Like the other readers of these books, I awaited with anticipation the publication of the next volume in the series and bought it as soon as it came out. I have enjoyed all of the movies so far and eagerly await the final episodes.

The judge that calls these books "gibberish" may have a small screw loose or has completely forgotten his childhood. The books are great and much deeper than one would think.

The last book is extremely introspective and has hidden meanings throughout. Ms. Rowling has given the youth (and some of us old folks) some great reading and, perhaps more importantly where the youngsters are concerned, something to look forward to reading.

Thank you Ms. Rowling!

William Nesbitt, Raleigh, NC USA

Kids seem to have no trouble following the Potter books. It's scary that a judge can't.

Chris, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

Yes; however, J.Rowling rode on the coat
tails of other and presented them in a bold new interpretation all her own. This Vander Ark is merely trying to rip off J. K. Rowling's coat tails.

Ed Hieronymus, Mc Kee, Kentucky USA

Harry Potter is hardly gibberish. Has the judge listened to attorneys trying cases? He lacks imagination...

Long Live Harry Potter!!!!!!!!!

Tamara J, Rodeo, NM

Gibberish! The book is easily comprehensible to 10 year olds. How did this man get to be a district court judge? Probably a Clinton appointee.

David Mickelson, Vancouver, United States, Washington

My 9 year old grandson has digested the entire series. He relishes the complexity and challenge. It would not be a stretch to suggest that Harry Potter's world has fosterd a love of reading in him that will serve him well throughout his life. He is now reading the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Charles Cowell, Tyler, Texas

And I'll bet Judge Patterson hasn't read anything substantive outside of a legal brief in decades...

DeTroyes, Chicago, IL

Anything Rowling puts to paper can ONLY be seen as gibberish.
The entire series is a farce, It was much better when Tolkien wrote it, and called it lord of the rings.

Matt , stratham, NH

Makes me wonder just how bright the judge is , if young children can read a book and understand it , and a JUDGE , supposedly an intelligent adult , found them hard to follow...

Rick, Ottawa, Canada

J. K. Rowling did well in capitalizing from the legends and myths of old. Elves, giants, trolls and other magical beasts have been found in both fiction and religion around the world. While it is true the she had woven these characters into a tapestry of a captivating story line; it is unfair of her to penalize another who took initiative to ride upon her coat tails. He should give her a percentage, because of copyright, but still she has lots of money from riding the coat tails of others, maybe now she should get a life as well!

Sean , Washington, USA, NJ

I think that Ms. Rowling is going a little overboard. If Mr. Vander Ark had written a new Harry Potter book himself, then I can understand why she would be upset. The idea of this man writing a Harry Potter definitions book is not a threat. Maybe Ms. Rowling is jealous that she did not think of the idea herself.

Peter Thiele, Hackensack, NJ

Harry Potter is FANTASY! What does that stupid judge expect. Ms. Rowling has the rights to her gibberish. If he cannot understand it after reading one half of one book, then another judge needs to be appointed.
This judge must be a clinton appointee.

Bob Noah, Dunnellon, Florida