strong interest in the Volume 23 and that Dr. Snitzer relied on
Dr. Laudise for direction.
Dr. Snitzer further testified that he sent all pertinent
information that pertained to the subject matter of his patent
application to Dr. Stubbs and that he did not send him a copy of
the Hill manuscript. He also testified that he searched his
files and did not find a copy of the Hill manuscript.
We are not persuaded by Snitzer's explanations. First, we
credit the testimony of Dr. Hill over that of Dr. Snitzer, since
at least Cooperman corroborates portions of Dr. Hill's testimony.
Further, Wachtman testified that it was his perception that
Dr. Snitzer was busy at the time Dr. Snitzer was a guest editor.
However, Wachtman's testimony is based on his opinion, not on
first hand knowledge. That Dr. Snitzer appeared to be busy with
duties outside of being a guest editor does not indicate that the
Hill manuscript was never sent to him. Further, that Dr. Snitzer
searched his files for a copy of the Hill manuscript is weighed
in light of his testimony that he was not very good at keeping
files (Finding 94). Dr. Snitzer's and Mr. Wachtman's testimony,
when weighed against the circumstantial evidence that Hill has
directed us to is not persuasive.
Snitzer attacks the credibility of Cooperman's testimony.
Snitzer argues that since Cooperman dealt with numerous
manuscripts, authors, editors, etc., during 1993, that she is
51
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007