A
Anonymous
Guest
That explanation still wouldn't account for why the omitted text was inexplicably restored in later editions. Did he and his lawyers just decide, "f*** it! Might as well put it back!" after wasting time and energy pursuing the matter? What would be the point? Furthermore, if this were the case, why wouldn't his lawyers demand that the relevant portion of the book be removed entirely? There was still much for the press to extrapolate from the edited text, it was just made a little more ambiguous. He still would have gotten some phonecalls and knocks on his door. If this was a legal issue and the edits were made as a protective measure, it was lazy and shortsighted to say the least. It just seems highly unlikely compared to the alternative.
It was probably a request and not a demand made to peipnguin and not to moz. Perhaps they said OK its not a very relevant portion but reversed that when it became an issue, the deletion, in the reviews and press of what was then and now a very hot selling book. Nothing is legally binding until they go to court