The publishers have done nicely out of the controversy though, and the timing of the case just before the release of the film has been … convenient. (Ironical too that the case should wrap up just before Easter!)

The whole debacle raises some interesting questions. If Baigent and Leigh's case had succeeded, then perhaps someone who had written a book about World War II could have looked at suing the makers of Saving Private Ryan on the grounds that it uses similar material! In fact, taken far enough, just about anything that's about anything could find itself being sued for being based on something!

As the race to gain market attention becomes more intense, has the courtroom become a legitimate marketing channel? Intellectualise what might well be seen as a spurious and theoretical debate, throw some media at it, spend a few hundred thousand … and suddenly both books are flying off the shelves as people flock to see what all the fuss is about.

(Of course, all parties are denying that this is the case, but an alien in Area 51 who is descended from the Knights Templar and whose mother works for the real World Government has told me otherwise after she'd shown me a secret society handshake she learned in a cropped cornfield.)

Rapper Eminem certainly proved that a little controversy and public outrage can do wonders for sales, and there's no denying The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail's done well out of the matter, achieving a level of legitimacy as a work that I for one would never have afforded it. So is this an example of a legitimate lawsuit or astute leverage? And should more products in a mature or declining stage of their market cycle look to find ways to link themselves with today's hot properties in order to give themselves a little boost? Will any link do - as long as one can get it to stick for long enough to gain the media's attention and the public's interest?

As for the court case itself, what's next, one asks with just a little incredulity. Lawyers aren't exactly known for letting their eyes err too far from the billings, so if courts accept that their involvement in large publicised cases does make a commercial contribution to a product, can we expect to see commercial breaks during trials, sponsors' logos on judge's robes, even royalties for juries? And how long before the first witness is caught taking performance-enhancing drugs to ensure they can last the distance on the stand?