Software Expert Witnesses for Failed Implementations

Joseph Caruso founded Global Digital Forensics in 1992 after a technology career that began in 1980 in software development and grew through mainframe databases, real time transaction systems, mobile operating systems and cellular networks. He has been retained as a consulting expert on mobile technology in Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft and Apple v. Samsung, analyzed airline reservation architecture, real time transactions, mainframe databases, source code and system configuration in an American Express consumer class action, and analyzed credit card transaction and deposit systems in Bank One shareholder litigation. His degree from Stevens Institute of Technology is a dual BA/BS in mathematics and engineering physics.

GDF also builds and owns its own software products, from eDiscovery processing and hosting platforms to forensic analysis tools, so the expert who evaluates a failed implementation has lived through requirements, releases and defects from the vendor's side of the table as well as the examiner's. The practice spans federal district court, multidistrict litigation, arbitration and ITC Section 337 proceedings, most often for Fortune 1000 and AmLaw 100 clients.

Counsel can describe the software and the stage of the case and we will say whether the matter fits this practice before anyone is retained.

Software disputes are rarely about whether a defect exists somewhere in a large application; every large application has defects. They are about whether a specific behavior violated a specific requirement during a specific period, and whether that behavior caused the harm alleged. We start with the specifications, acceptance criteria, statements of work and change orders that define what the system was supposed to do, then the release records, configuration and operational logs that show what it did.

A failed transaction, a dropped record or a slow screen can come from application logic, configuration, input data, infrastructure or an external dependency. We lay out the competing explanations, identify the evidence that would distinguish them and test each one against the record, because a technically correct finding about the wrong cause is worthless to counsel and dangerous on the stand.

If you already know which behavior is in dispute but not which records would prove its cause, call (800) 868-8189 and we will list the sources to preserve first.

A demonstration shows that a feature works, or fails, under conditions the demonstrator chose. A reproducible test records the build, the environment, the inputs and the steps so that another qualified examiner can run it and get the same result. We prefer the second, and when the historical environment cannot be recreated we document each difference between the test system and the production system as it existed during the disputed period rather than letting the difference hide inside a conclusion.

Source review and runtime testing answer different questions. The code may reveal a possible execution path; testing shows whether that path was taken under particular conditions. When a dispute needs line by line analysis of particular files, algorithms or alleged copying, our source code expert witness practice takes that scope, and the two experts work from one set of facts.

Want to know whether the environment in your matter can support a reproducible test at all? Ask before the test plan is drafted.

The report sets the requirement beside the behavior in engineering terms, release by release, so the court can see exactly where the system met the specification and where it fell short.

The written work walks from the requirement to the observed behavior to the evidence of cause, records every test run and the dependencies the conclusion rests on, and uses exhibits a jury can follow: a timeline of releases and failures, a side by side of the specification and the log, a diagram of where the data went. Plain English is how the court follows the technical record.

Questions about how expert reports and testimony are prepared are answered in the digital forensics FAQ, and the rest can be settled on the first call.

A vendor demonstration can show that a feature works under selected conditions. A disputed failure demands a sharper question: which version, which inputs, which configuration and which dependencies produced the behavior the plaintiff complains of. We define those conditions in writing, retain the materials needed to repeat the test and present the result as what it is.

Consider an integration accused of dropping transactions between an order system and a fulfillment platform. The relevant sources would include the acceptance criteria, the application and queue logs on both sides, the configuration and the release history for the period in question. We compare the expected sequence with the observed sequence and weigh data quality, environmental differences and third party outages before attributing the loss to anyone's code.

The NIST guidelines for software verification describe complementary testing methods, and the method chosen for a dispute has to fit the technical question rather than generate a long list of automated findings. The same record that proves a defect can also prove that it did not cause the loss alleged, and we say which.

If the court has only seen a demonstration so far, ask us what a reproducible test would add before the schedule closes.

Our approach to testing what software does is aligned with the NIST guidelines for software verification ↗.

Joseph Caruso, founder, CEO and CTO of Global Digital Forensics, has worked in software and systems since 1980. His consulting expert work includes Motorola Mobility v. Microsoft and Apple v. Samsung, and his class action work has covered reservation architecture, real time transactions, mainframe databases, source code and credit card transaction and deposit systems. Meet the GDF team and ask for a current CV. The proposed expert’s availability and conflicts are confirmed before you commit.

Need to know who would be disclosed before you commit? Ask which expert would be proposed and we will confirm availability and conflicts first.