gryphon wrote:
http://www.comicbookresou...m/?page=article&id=33616

From comicbookresources with a lot more detail.


The document also goes into detail on the legal maneuverings both sides went through to make their case with Marvel taking action to strike down testimony from witnesses including Jim Steranko and Joe Sinnott and experts Mark Evanier and "Jack Kirby Collector" publisher John Morrow. While the publisher was unable to get the first hand accounts of the former witnesses stricken, the opinions of Evanier and Morrow were excluded from the final decision.

The court saw fit to note that while many witnesses and defendants in the proceedings "challenged the credibility" of Stan Lee "general attacks on Lee's honesty or credibility, without more, are insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact." In other words, no real evidence suggests that Lee or Marvel misrepresented themselves when dealing with Kirby.

Overall, it was Lee's testimony as well as Steranko and Sinnott's that helped seal the case for Marvel. As direct witnesses to Marvel Editorial policy at the time, those men had the closest take to how the work was really created.

 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." --Doctor Who