Although the decision doesn't surprise me in the least, the timing certainly does. Judge Gary Feess, who was to hear arguments in the copyright case over Watchmen between Fox, the studio that at one time held all the cards, and Warner Bros., the studio that plans to release the film in March.

Feess had been scheduled to hear the case beginning January 6th, a date he then moved back to January 20th. Then Wednesday, a real shocker came from the District Court: According to The New York Times, Feess ruled in a five-page written order that Fox indeed did hold rights to the project even though it had failed to make the movie on its own back in the 1990s.

“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the Watchmen motion picture,” wrote hizzoner. What does this mean? Well, to begin with, that 2009 is already a better year for Fox than 2008. But does that mean we won't see Watchmen on Marh 6th, as planned?

My hunch would be that, rather than putting both studios in a bind by ruling on this in late January, Feess has allowed them as much time as possible to work out a settlement, which would clearly favor Fox however you slice it. I mean, as of yesterday, they were getting nothing, and now they'll get something. And probably a great big something.

What can Warner Bros. do? File an appeal, I guess, and piss off millions of fans in the process...or work out a deal with its competitor to grab a healthy percentage of the film's theatrical, cable, and home video rights simply for not having the sense to make the movie on its own terms 15 years ago. Good gig.

I wouldn't expect Warner to balk, because the economy is bad and delaying this movie could really throw off 2009. And it's not as if Warner Bros. made this deal with Fox and is reneging. The judge is only looking at old contracts Fox signed with producer Lawrence Gordon.

And the judge's advice: Move forward and work it out yourselves. “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review.”