Ramos's Analytics is correct if it belongs to a single person called Ramos.
Forbes' Folly evidently belongs to a group of Forbeses.
Sorry, neither statement is strictly true (although the irony shows through), although the first can be left to the discretion writer/editor.
Hart's Rules is the guidebook for typesetters, at least in the UK, and the guidance on the genitive apostrophe is:
"Use
’s to indicate possession after singular nouns and indefinite pronouns (for example
everything, anyone):
the boy’s job the box’s contents anyone’s guess
"and after plural nouns that do not end in s:
people’s opinions women’s rights
"With singular nouns that end in an s sound, the extra s can be omitted
if it makes the phrase difficult to pronounce (
the catharsis’ effects), but it is often preferable to transpose the words and insert of (
the effects of the catharsis)."
(Ritter, R. M.. New Hart's Rules: The Handbook of Style for Writers and Editors (p. 63). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.)
As a former editor/typesetter, I would probably have left
Ramos's as is, but had the base belonged to Ramases it would definitely have been rendered as
Ramases' Analytics.
A base belonging to a group of Forbses would be
Forbses' Folly.
Look at my signature! Look at my signature!
I noticed.
Everything's important to someone.
:
:
You may have a point, I hate English. And now I come across this:
