Live Webcast/Rebroadcast – You watch the course online at the specified date and time shown below. You can ask questions and receive answers during the course.
On-Demand – You watch the course anytime and will have access to the course 24/7. Our On-Demand courses are available within 5-10 business days after the original recording and accessible for one year.
This program was recorded on April 29, 2020
Source code is a human-readable form of computer software. It forms the basis for the apps and internet platforms we use everyday, and for the ever-increasing computerization of devices and processes. Source code can play an important evidentiary role in a wide variety of litigation. Not only is it central to litigation directly related to software, such as patent, copyright, and trade secret cases, but it often also figures in other practice areas, including contracts, products liability, and even criminal law (for example, a DUI defendant’s expert might examine breathalyzer source code to see if there are “bugs” that might be used to cast reasonable doubt on the breathalyzer’s output). How a particular device operates may become a question in cases that are otherwise unrelated to software, and this is often best answered by inspecting the source code for the device (e.g. medical equipment, voting machines).
Andrew Schulman is an attorney, software engineer, and software litigation consulting expert with a specialty in software patent litigation; he has an LL.M. in Intellectual Property. Mr. Schulman joined DisputeSoft as a Managing Director, specializing in providing expert consulting services in regard to intellectual property disputes involving software. He has a particular focus on software patent litigation, pre-litigation investigations, and source code review. Mr. Schulman is also the founder and principal of Software Litigation Consulting. He is an attorney, software engineer, and software litigation consulting expert with a specialty in software patent litigation. Mr. Schulman also authors works on a variety of related subjects, including patent claim charting, software reverse engineering, software patent litigation, and source code review for litigation.
1.5 General Credit
ProLawCLE will seek approval of any CLE program where the registering attorney is primarily licensed with exceptions stated below. Application is made at the time an attorney registers for a course, therefore approval may not be received at the time of broadcasting.
ProLawCLE does not seek approval in the state of Virginia.
Each state has its own governing rules and regulations with regards to CLE courses and formats, therefore please contact your state MCLE regulatory entity for further details about your state’s rules. Please visit our State Requirements page for information regarding your state’s CLE requirements and/or contact information for your state bar.
As stated in our Reciprocity Provision, ProLawCLE will grant credit in the following states through reciprocity, therefore direct application will not be made in these states:
AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, and PR.
ProLawCLE is dedicated to providing quality education from expert speakers and ensuring each attorney receives CLE credit for their participation. If for some reason a particular course does not receive approval in the attorney’s primary state of licensure, ProLawCLE will give credit for a future approved course or give a full refund, if applicable.
Each On-Demand course is available to you for 1 year from date of purchase. Additionally, CLE credit is only available within that year.
- How source code is handled in the discovery phase of litigation,
- How experts use source code to answer specific types of litigation-related questions
- How “source code” is defined, and types of source code, both generally and in the context of a particular case
- Source-code protective orders (POs), including their impact on the source-code examination
- The relation of source code to other types of electronic information (ESI), and how source code can be correlated with other evidence such as emails
- The relation of a litigation source-code examination to the use of source code in non-litigation contexts, to highlight Daubert issues of the basis and methodology for expert opinions regarding software
- Tools and methods typically used to inventory, search, compare, and analyze source code
- The differences between source-code examination and computer forensics
- Analyzing software (including source code) to question the results generated by forensics devices and forensics software
- Analyzing software (including source code) to uncover an organization’s defacto policies and practices
- Some source code “gotchas” that can be used to question an expert’s testimony
- Searching for absences, negatives, counter-examples, and for code missing from a party’s source-code production