This, Snitzer argues, coupled with Cooperman's testimony that she
would have only sent copies of manuscripts to Dr. Laudise, if he
had so requested, evidences that Dr. Laudise received the Hill
manuscript and not Dr. Snitzer.
Snitzer has moved to exclude the May 12, 1992 Cooperman
letter. In our discussion that follows, we agree with Snitzer
that the letter is hearsay and have excluded the letter from
consideration. Thus, Snitzer cannot rely upon the letter in
support of its theory. In any event, Snitzer's theory does not
discredit or outweigh the testimony of Cooperman that during the
regular course of business for the Volume 23, a copy of each
manuscript was sent to each guest editor. We find the Cooperman
testimony credible. Although Cooperman testified affirmatively
that she would have only sent copies of the manuscript to Dr.
Laudise, if he had so requested, there is no convincing evidence
based on the record before us that indeed that is what happened.
Cooperman testified specifically that she did not think that she
had sent the Hill manuscript only to Dr. Laudise (Finding 77).
Snitzer argues that the insert that Dr. Snitzer wrote for
the introduction of Volume 23 is a general overview of relevant
topics in the field of fiber optics, and does not demonstrate
that Dr. Snitzer read the Hill manuscript (Paper 289 at 45).
While it may be true that the insert may refer to a general
overview of relevant topics in the field of fiber optics, it is
53
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007