This paper presents a new development in the forensics of software copyright through a juxtaposed comparison between the proven AFC test and the recent POSAR test, the two forensic procedures for establishing software copyright infringement cases. First, the paper separately overviews the 3-stage, linear sequential AFC test and then the 5-phase, cyclic POSAR test (as AFC’s logical extension). The paper then compares the processes involved in each of the 5 phases of the POSAR test with the processes involved in the 3 stages in the AFC test, for the benefit of forensic practitioners and researchers. Finally, the paper discusses some common areas where both the tests will need careful handling while implementing them in the judiciaries across the world.
USCA2C. (1992). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 33369; 119 A.L.R. Fed. 741; 92 Cal. Daily, Op. Service 10213, January 9, 1992, Argued on December 17, 1992.
Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2014). Judiciaryfriendly forensics of software copyright infringement, IGI-Global.
ESALab. (2007). European Software Analysis Laboratory’s “SIMILE Workshop”: Automating the detection of counterfeit software, available at www.esalab.com
USCA2C. (1997). United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Corrected Amicus Brief filed by Mark M. Arkin, Counsel of 5 computer scientists regarding software copyright and trade secret cases – Observation of Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test, on appeal from the United States district court for the southern district of New York, on the suit Harbour Software Inc. Vs Applied Systems Inc., 97-7197L
USDCM. (2010). United States District Court of Massachusetts, Memorandum and Order, Civil Action number 07-12157 PBS, Real View LLC. Vs. 20-20 Technologies, p.2
Walker, J. (1996). Protectable 'Nuggets': Drawing the Line between Idea and Expression in computer Program Copyright Protection, 44, Journal of the Copyright Society of USA, 44(79).
Baboo, S. S. and Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2009). Software Piracy Forensics: Exploiting Nonautomated and JudiciaryFriendly Technique, Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 2(4), 177-179.
Baboo, S. S. and Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2010). Software Piracy Forensics: The need for further developing AFC, Second International ICST Conference on Digital Forensics & Cyber Crime, 4-6 October 2010, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2012a). A Proposal for Incorporating Programming Blunder as Important Evidence in AbstractionFiltration-Comparison Test, Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Richmond, VA.
Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2012b). Software Piracy Forensics: A Proposal for Incorporating Dead Codes and other Programming Blunders as Important Evidence in AFC Test, IEEE 36th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications Workshops, Turkey.
USCA10C. (1993). United States Court of Appeals, tenth Circuit, Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Industries. 9 F.3d 823, 28 USPQ2d 1503
Baboo, S. S. and Bhattathiripad, P. V. (2011). Software Piracy Forensics: Impact and Implications of post-piracy modification, Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law, Richmond, VA, 2011.
Bariki, H., Hashmi, M., and Baggili, I. (2010). Defining a Standard for Reporting Digital Evidence Items in Computer Forensic Tools, Proceedings of the Second International ICST Conference on Digital Forensics & Cyber Crime, 4-6 October 2010, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Hollaar, L. A. (2002). Legal Protection of Digital Information, BNA Books
Zeidman, B. (2011). The Software IP Detectives’s Handbook, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kremen, S. H. (1998). Presentation of Technical Evidence by Experts in Computer Related Intellectual Property Litigation, Computer Forensics, 2(1), November 1998.
Bhattathiripad, Vinod P.
"Forensics of Software Copyright Infringement Crimes: The Modern POSAR Test Juxtaposed With The Dated AFC Test,"
Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: Vol. 9
, Article 7.
Available at: http://commons.erau.edu/jdfsl/vol9/iss2/7