Remove rule that is confusing

The original text stated that one should only return a unique or managed pointer if you were given one in the first place. This makes it sound as if the function *should* return a unique pointer if it were given a unique pointer. The rest of the section goes on to describe why this is bad, and the example of bad code does exactly what the rule just said to do.

I reworded the original rule into a reference to the more concise rule mentioned at the bottom of the section, which helps add emphasis (a la 'it bears repeating').