Cracking Charles Dickens’ code

> a judge ruled in Dickens’s favour: yes, he could announce the switch, as long as he said Household Words was being “discontinued by him” and not the publisher.

> A triumphant Dickens used this phrase in the advert intended for the Times, but a clerk rejected it. Unaware of the legal ruling, the clerk felt the advert gave the false impression that Household Words was indeed being shut down.

> The Times swiftly apologised and reinstated the advert. Dickens had won.

What does everyone think about this? I can see why the clerk labelled the wording misleading, although I can also see how the Times would prefer to keep themselves out of legal hot water with such a successful author.

All that work, and it's about some banal business dispute.