Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering » expert witness

Multiprocessing CodeSuite-MP

zeidman — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:54:05 +0000

Until now there were two ways of running really big jobs of CodeSuite. One was to simply run it and wait for as long as it took. Really large jobs can take as much as a week or two. The other option was to run the job on CodeGrid, our framework that distributes the job over a grid of networked computers. CodeGrid shows an almost linear speedup for each computer on the grid, but it requires someone to maintain the computers and the network and that can be a daunting job. Now there’s a third option;, CodeSuite-MP allows you to run multiple jobs on a single multicore computer. We’re seeing a near-linear speedup for the number of cores, and there’s no special maintenance required. We’re even seeing a near-linear speedup using virtual cores. If you want to get a license for CodeSuite-MP, contact our sales department.

The Report Generator (RPG)

zeidman — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:10:58 +0000

The Report Generator (“RPG”) is a new program from SAFE that automatically generates draft expert reports and declarations for litigation. Reports have several generic sections such as an expert’s experience and descriptions of the technologies involved in the examination, which can be shared amongst reports. By automating the compilation of the generic information into a formatted and structured draft report, the expert can focus on performing the analysis and writing the case-specific arguments.

When using the RPG, an expert selects the type of case, type of report, types of technologies involved, types of tools used, and expert background profiles from a GUI. Then a Microsoft Word draft report is generated that includes all of the selected generic information intermixed with blank sections where case-specific information should be filled in manually.

Currently, many experts either dig through their prior works to find specific descriptions or write them from scratch each time. Maintaining a library of generic report elements is a challenge, especially when multiple experts are involved. RPG acts as a version control system between multiple experts who can upload and download detailed descriptions of experts, technologies, and tools from a central server. The reports are generated according to specific formats, so an entire team of experts can easily produce reports that are consistently formatted with the most up-to-date descriptions.

RPG also keeps synced descriptions of CodeSuite, so it can include the most up-to-date descriptions and pricing of the tools without having to search the S.A.F.E. website or CodeSuite help files.

If you’re interested in trying out RPG, contact our Sales Department.

The Supreme Court rules about software patents and business method patents (kind of)

zeidman — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:01:40 +0000

Many in the intellectual property business have been holding their breath waiting for this case to be decided. Many countries don’t allow software patents at all and most countries don’t allow business method patents. The United States allows both, but the lines, limits, and legality have been changing over the past years. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided that Bilski’s patent on a method for handling energy hedge funds was not patentable because patents must be tied to a particular machine or transform an article from one thing or state to another. This “machine-or-transformation test” is probably as confusing to you as it is to the thousand of inventors and attorneys who had to understand it. Bilski appealed to the Supreme Court and on Monday the Supreme Court decided. Bilski loses his patent, but not because of the machine-or-transformation test. Abstract ideas have never been patentable and that’s what Bilski’s patent is, according to the Supreme Court. They also ruled that the machine-or-transformation test is only one test for patentability, not the only test as the CAFC had stated. They also ruled that business methods are patentable, as long as they are not abstract ideas.

Still confused? So are many others. Except for Bilski who now knows for sure that he doesn’t have a patent. Looking at it as an inventor, I see that the court has broadened the scope of patentable materials, which is good, but has made the test for patentability muddier which means I will spend even more time and more money arguing with patent examiners. Looking at it as an expert witness for patent litigation, this ruling is sure to cause a lot more disagreements, which means a lot more litigation, which means a lot more business for me.

An excellent discussion of the Bilski ruling can be found at Patently-O, written by Dennis Crouch,
Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. His regular columns on patents are the best ones available anywhere.

CodeCLOC for software transfer pricing cases

zeidman — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:21:33 +0000

Last month we announced CodeMeasure, our new standalone tool for measuring software growth. This month we announced the release of CodeSuite 4.0 that includes CodeCLOC for measuring how software evolves across versions of code. CodeCLOC uses the same algorithms that were implemented in CodeMeasure and that were developed for the landmark software transfer pricing case Symantec v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

You’re probably wondering what is the difference between CodeMeasure and CodeCLOC. CodeMeasure is a simple, inexpensive program for generating the CLOC measurement statistics for multiple versions of a program. CodeCLOC, intended for litigation, compares only two versions of code but produces a detailed database of results that can be further filtered and analyzed using CodeSuite or your own custom tools. The results from CodeCLOC can be presented in court and the CodeCLOC database can be presented to the opposing party for verification.

CodeSuite 4.0 also has a few other nice features including a revamped user interface. There’s also a new function to generate statistics from any CodeSuite database and the command line interface has been enhanced for integrating with other programs. CodeSuite 4.0 is available for download here and can be purchased on a term license or project basis. CodeCLOC is priced at $20 per megabyte. A one year term license for CodeSuite is $100,000.

Can whitespace patterns provide clues to plagiarism?

zeidman — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:11:57 +0000

Over the years I’ve run into expert witnesses and attorneys who have told me about software copyright infringement cases where the only clues that copying occurred were patterns of spaces and tabs (“whitespace”). The idea is that if a truly ambitious thief wanted to cover his tracks, he would modify the stolen code so much that there was no longer a visible trace of copying. However, the clever software sleuth could find patterns of whitespace that the thief had missed; although virtually nothing remained, the invisible tabs and spaces could produce a conviction.

This always sounded intriguing, but I wondered whether anyone had ever tested this theory. We could find no articles or papers on the subject, except for one inconclusive paper, and I dreaded to think that some programmer was convicted based on an untested theory. I decided to have my consulting company, Zeidman Consulting, do some carefully controlled research. If the results turned out well, SAFE Corporation would add whitespace pattern algorithms to CodeSuite to further enhance its ability to detect copying.

Our results were published in a paper entitled Measuring Whitespace Patterns as an Indication of Plagiarism that was recently presented at the ADFSL Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law. Our results are summarized in the final paragraph:

This whitespace pattern matching method can be used to focus a search for evidence of similarity or copying, but this method cannot stand by itself.

What we discovered is that even very different files have often have similar whitespace patterns. At Zeidman Consulting we’ve used whitespace patterns to confirm copying that was already detected through the use of CodeMatch to find correlated programming elements. In those cases, the whitespace patterns offered further confidence in our findings and in some cases showed which program had been developed first. For a copy of the paper, email us at info@SAFE-corp.biz.

Our next research project is to look at sequences of whitespace within files. Maybe there we’ll find some clues to copying. But for now our results show that whitespace patterns without any other evidence should not be used to determine that copying occurred.

Who really invented the computer?

zeidman — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:41:33 +0000

The digital computer is usually credited as the invention of two professors at the University of Pennsylvania, J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly. Funded by the United States Army, the ENIAC computer was designed to calculate tables for launching artillery shells accurately in World War II, but was not completed until after the war in 1946. Unlike earlier computers that had a fixed purpose, ENIAC (meaning “Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer”) could be reprogrammed to handle many different purposes. But were Eckert and Mauchly really the pioneers of today’s modern digital age?

Actually no. The real inventors of the digital computer were physics professor John Atanasoff and his student Clifford Berry who created the first digital computer in a laboratory at Iowa State University. The ABC (“Atanasoff-Berry Computer“) was built in 1939, yet by the time of ENIAC’s introduction to the world, the ABC had been forgotten. What had happened? World War II broke out and the University of Iowa as well as Atanasoff and Berry simply didn’t realize the power of what they had created. Atanasoff was called up by the Navy to do physics research, eventually participating in the atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll.

When Atanasoff returned to Iowa state he found that his invention was gone to make room for other equipment—because the ABC was built piece-by-piece in the laboratory, it was too big to move out and so it had to be dismantled. Iowa State had decided that a patent was too expensive and so never filed one. John Atanasoff went on to gain recognition for a number of inventions involving physics, but the ABC was mostly forgotten.

In the 1970s there were a handful of companies that saw the great potential in the electronic computer. Sperry Rand Corporation, which was formed through a series of mergers and acquisitions including the Eckert–Mauchly Computer Corporation, held U.S. Patent 3,120,606 for the digital computer. In 1973, Sperry Rand sued Honeywell, Inc. and Honeywell reciprocated. Thus began one of the most important intellectual property cases in history.

During the research for this case, Honeywell found out about John Atanasoff and the ABC, which became pivotal information. The case was tried for 7 months after which Judge Earl R. Larson handed down his decision that stated, among other things, that the Eckert-Mauchly patent was invalid.

Some people have disputed this finding, arguing that this was a “legal” finding or a “loophole” or that a lawyer or a judge simply couldn’t understand the complex engineering issues involved. Here’s my take on this.

Both sides had a lot of time, and access to technical experts, to make the best case they could.
So much was at stake, and a huge amount of money was spent to bring out the truth. Both sides had very significant resources. If a case with this much at stake could not convince a judge after seven months, then there is little hope for any IP case.
Evidence was found and witness verified that John Atanasoff had attended a conference in Philadelphia where he met John Mauchly and described his work. He then invited Mauchly out to Iowa where Mauchly spent several days examining Atanasoff’s computer and many late nights reading Atanasoff’s technical specifications. Letters were produced, signed by Mauchly, that thanked Atanasoff for his hospitality and for the tour of his amazing invention.
Mauchly testified at the trial. He admitted that he had met Atanasoff and eventually admitted that he had examined the ABC and read its specification.
Mauchly and Sperry Rand Corporation were challenged to produce a single piece of evidence that Mauchly or Eckert had written about or researched digital electronics before Mauchly’s meeting with Atanasoff. The best Mauchly could do was produce a circuit for a model railway flasher that he claimed was a binary counter—it counted from 0 to 1 and then back to 0.

In fact, it became clear that Mauchly and Eckert attempted to claim much more credit than they deserved and tried to deny credit to others. They had actually greatly improved on Atanasoff’s original design. Had Eckert and Mauchly been more humble, had they added Atanasoff’s name to their patent, had they patented their own improvements instead of the entire invention, they may have given Sperry Rand the most powerful IP in technology history. Instead the invention of the computer entered the public domain without restriction, and the rest is history…

For a good book on the subject, read The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story by Alice R. Burks and Arthur W. Burks.

What to look for in an expert?

zeidman — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:48:52 +0000

I recently came across a study in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law out of the The University of Alabama entitled “Credibility in the Courtroom: How Likeable Should an Expert Witness Be?” To be honest, I’m not sure I understand their conclusion:

The likeability of the expert witnesses was found to be significantly related to the jurors’ perception of their trustworthiness, but not to their displays of confidence or knowledge or to the mock jurors’ sentencing decisions.

Reading the paper doesn’t make it a whole lot clearer for me, and I think their mock trial setup is a bit contrived, particularly since the jury consisted of psychology students, a demographic that you’d be unlikely to find on a real jury. Also there were only two expert witnesses for the comparison. To their credit, they discuss these potential shortcomings. I do think, however, that the paper points out something (that may have already been obvious)—there is more to being an expert witness than just being correct. Personality and presentation are strong factors.

On the other hand, I feel that this subjective aspect should be minimized. Experts need standards and measurable quantities whenever possible. Before I began developing the concept of source code correlation, the way software copyright infringement and trade secret theft cases were resolved was to have two experts give contrary opinions based on their years of experience. The judge or jury would tend to get lost in the technical details, a strategy purposely employed by some experts and attorneys, and a judgment would depend on which expert appeared more credible.

Instead, I decided to expand the field of software forensics and made it my goal to bring as much credibility to the field as DNA analysis, another very complex process that is well accepted in modern courts. I still believe that an expert’s credibility and likeability will always be factors in IP litigation, but that the emergence of source code correlation and object code correlation provide standard measures that bring a great deal of objectivity to a lawsuit’s outcome.