Comments for Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering

Comment on Who really invented the computer? by zeidman

zeidman — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:53:35 +0000

Thanks for writing. Obviously there is a lot of passion among people on this topic. However, your facts are wrong. The ABC was up and running, but was dismantled to make space for other equipment in the lab. It was fully electronic, at least as much as ENIAC that required switchboard plugs to program it. Finally, I think that if the things you say were true (and I’ve heard them all before), wouldn’t Sperry have made that case in court? Or Mauchly? Why did Mauchly lie about his contact with Atanasoff until he was presented with his own letters to Atanasoff in court? Anyway, all of this is documented in several books and, most importantly, the trial transcripts. You can find further information, and confirmation, at the University of Pennsylvania archive, http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upd/eniactrial/eniac.html, as well as many other places on the web. You’ll also find that there were a lot of people who were pretty upset with Eckert and Mauchly for not giving them credit, including several who sued to get their names on the computer patent.

Comment on Who really invented the computer? by G Calcerano

G Calcerano — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:46:17 +0000

Atanasoff supporters always leave out the fact that he never completed his machine; what Mauchly saw was a small piece of it. The ABC was not truly electronic in that it did not utilize electronic speeds, relying on human intervention every step of the way. The ENIAC was a digital machine, not a binary machine like the ABC, and could hardly be said to be any kind of descendent of the ABC. Finally, the ABC was FIRST COMPLETED in the 1970s, when Honeywell paid to have it constructed for the purpose of the trial. Art and Alice Burks seem to carry some kind of grudge against Mauchly and Eckert, possibly stemming from not getting all the credit they sought for their role in construction of the ENIAC. For a better researched look at how ENIAC came to be, read Scott McCartney’s book.

Comment on When is reverse engineering OK? by I

Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:30:27 +0000

excellent article. i think something needs to be done about software theft. at the moment its too easy for hackers to get a way with theft. the police wouldnt do anything either. the internet needs some type of worldwide police for data crime

Comment on CodeCross tool just released for detecting software IP theft and infringement by zeidman

zeidman — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:03:24 +0000

Hi Todd,

I had heard of them, but I’ve never worked with them (or against them that I’m aware of). I don’t know what tools they use to help in their analysis, but the work can’t be done without some kind of analysis tools. Maybe they use CodeSuite? Analyzing code without an analysis tool, given the complexity of software code, would be like the FBI doing fingerprint matching without a database or a matching algorithm. In Sherlock Holmes’s day, when there were only a few dozen suspects including the butler and the maid, that was possible. Not now.

-Bob

Comment on CodeCross tool just released for detecting software IP theft and infringement by Todd Greenwood

Todd Greenwood — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:56:47 +0000

Hi there,
I have heard about a company that provides a human aspect to software code analysis called CodeDivers.com. Have you ever worked with them?

Comment on Software patents – good or bad? by Ray Subs

Ray Subs — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:53:04 +0000

I still stand by my opinion that stronger patents are needed to minimize patent infringement and increase patent enforcement. I think inventors need to be properly compensated for their ideas and should be able to retain the rights to something that they created.