| |
| | Andrew Schulman, Software Litigation Consulting |
 | | Given error messages displayed by defendant’s product when plaintiff’s software is run, used Windows and DOS disassemblers and debuggers to trace back from the error messages to the lines of code that produced them; wrote reports assessing whether the error messages were technically necessary, bugs, or deliberate incompatibilities. |
 | | Automated comparison between over 1 million lines of source code (C/C++, Java, Visual Basic, HTML, resource scripts, help scripts, etc.) produced by defendants and plaintiffs, to find percentage overlap, while filtering out common boilerplate code, and code “constrained” by the application domain; reported results in terms of Altai abstraction-filtration-comparison test. |
 | | Examine binary and source code to show evolution of software over five versions, measuring percentage overlap between each, and showing that despite minimal overlap between first and last version, defendant’s first version (stipulated to be based on plaintiff’s software) acted as “scaffolding” within which defendant’s final version was constructed. |
| www.undoc.com (754 words) |
|