The day after
So. The trial ended yesterday (on time, somehow). Since full writeups seem to appear on a delay, here's one more entry as a cleanup post and then we'll have some peace and quiet. From what I hear, we've got three to four weeks minimum before we get a ruling.

(Watch This Page for update alerts. Because I will probably cram in as many ETAs as I can rather than break for a new entry.)

Gawker: Harry Potter Author Sorry She Made Muggle Cry, which links to NYT's Trial Over Potter Lexicon Ends With an Olive Branch:

“I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide — never ever,” she said as she took the stand for the second time in the three-day trial, as the last rebuttal witness. “Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work.”

[...]

The trial ended on Wednesday, and the judge, who is hearing the case without a jury, gave the lawyers three weeks to file more papers before he makes a decision.

I'm not sure why they decided to compare Jeri Johnson to Umbridge, though.

ETA: From lilgoala: Prompted by some scorn for Judge Patterson's apparent lack of reading comprehension over at TLC, Melissa weighs in:

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

From cbm, more from Melissa: "The press reports about yesterday's testimony are downright woeful and deceptive in their selective choosing of facts and quotes. I will transcribe my notebook at some point, and not post it on Leaky but on a personal space, where the ethics are in absolutely no conflict."

When more in-depth reports appear, I'll link them. Meanwhile, May 9th is the day the briefs are due; the ruling will obviously have to come sometime after that.

ETA 2: From seca: "The BBC has a new online article that I don't think has been posted here yet, I don't think. It comes off rather balanced, IMHO." Potter book 'threat' to authors. (FW thread)

From lilgoala, via diane_duane's widget: "Fan-made 'Harry Potter' encyclopedia should be given the green light." (FW thread)

From waltraute: Harry Potter is a plagiarist. (FW thread) Well, I guess Those Damn Harry Potter Plagiarists come by it honestly, then.

ETA 3: From an anonymouse: JKR = Heather Mills McCartney. What?

From lilgoala: SVA weeps, RDR twirls his mustache.  (FW thread)

WSJ LJ: Final (For Now!) Reflections on the Harry Potter Trial.

ETA 4: In the interest of equal time, RDR Books has updated: "Read editorials on the case from the the London Times and the Boston Globe as well as stories from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. More details about the case can be found on Anthony Falzone's blog. All available background information on the Harry Potter Lexicon lawsuit is available here."

ETA 5: Just a few links:

From platedlizard: Neil Gaiman weighs in, and he seems to have mixed feelings:

My main reaction is, having read as much as I can about it, given the copyright grey zone it seems to exist in, is a "Well, if it was me, I'd probably be flattered", but that obviously isn't how J.K. Rowling feels. I can't imagine myself trying to stop any of the unauthorised books that have come out about me or about things I've created over the years, and where possible I've tried to help, and even when I haven't liked them I've shrugged and let it go.

Interestingly, he also throws in a bit about the Nancy Stouffer "I came up with muggles first!" case ("She lied a lot"). (FW thread)

From insanitys_place: A BBC video interview in which "Steve claims he offered to make edits to the Lexicon before the Lawsuit." (FW thread) (From waltraute: The long version.) (Just in: lilgoala’s transcript.)

Also, I don't have a link, but there was a small article in the new EW that took a pro-SVA stance, arguing that JKR/WB winning "would set a dangerous precedent that could jeopardize film compilations, unauthorized biographies, and all kinds of pop culture guides that use snippets of the work they cover."

Latest:

ETA 6: A few more articles:

CNN: Potter case raises thorny issues.

Galley Cat: Harry Potter and the Wait for the Verdict.

Booksquare: JK Rowling Is Wrong.