Original sentence: (In the patent trials of the 1780s, it was variously claimed that: Arkwright had envisaged the design before meeting Kay, that Kay had stolen High's ideas, or that Kay conceived the machine as well as building it.Because of his own testimony, and because he had fled his bond with Arkwright under a felony charge, the character and veracity of John Kay were questioned in the trial.But, the judge did not require that the jury be convinced of the intellectual property theft; he instructed them to set Arkwright's patent aside (even if they thought he was its inventor) if they believed either that it was insufficiently novel, or that he had failed to adequately describe it in his 1769 patent.Four years later (in a long-running court battle) Highs, Kay and Kay's wife Sarah all testified that Arkwright had stolen High's invention of the rollers "by the medium of Mr Kay".His neighbor, Thomas Highs, was an inventor, and the two collaborated in textile-machinery experiments.QuickiWiki Look Up.The jury immediately found against Arkwright (a popular verdict) but no rights were ever transferred to Highs (or Kay).Though they made many trial machines, these three years of research were limited by their lack of capital, and they were unable to perfect any designs
Edited sentence: Four years later (in a long-running court battle) Kay and others all testified that Arkwright had stolen their inventions.His neighbour, Thomas Highs, was an inventor, and the two collaborated in textile-machinary experiments.In the subsequent patent battle, it was variously claimed that: Arkwright had envisaged the design before meeting Kay, that Kay had stolen High's ideas, or that Kay conceived the machine as well as building it.Though they made many trial machines, these three years of research were limited by their lack of capital.location= London