Isn't this the same as Shepperton Studios? -129.210.161.46 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the ill-informed speculation about the outcome of the UK court case. Having been in court for several days during the case, the reason that there was no further press comment was simply that no reporters attended after the opening day. It's perfectly normal in complicated cases like this one for the judge not to give judgment until some weeks or months after the hearing has finished, so as to allow time for consideration of arguments.

For what it's worth, if Lucasfilm had won, the last thing it would do would be to try to keep it quiet! Sjbradshaw (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated the article to reflect the judgment given on 31 July. Sjbradshaw (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've updated it to reflect the judgement given in July 2011. 41.135.9.101 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of this word is quite frankly unnecessary. As a Supreme Court ruled that the items in question do not fall under copyrighted sculpture law, it is irrelevant whether the manufacture is "unauthorized" or not. Someone is very keen to include the word however. However including the word is undoubtedly POV.41.133.47.137 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC) As they are being produced without a license, and the UK ruling only refers to the UK and not the rest of the world, yes, unauthorized is perfectly accurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]