SHMUEL ROTENSTREICH

Computer Science Department

The George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052

 

Home (301) 785-2900

Work (202) 994-6919

FAX (202) 994-4875

E-mail shmuel@gwu.edu

AREA OF EXPERTISE

Employment

1986-Present

Associate Professor of Computer Science at the School of Engineering and Applied Science at The George Washington University

 

Technical Background

In the last 5 years has developed:

A complex networking system that could support close to 100,000 computers of different kind in working in teams, individually to perform collaborative and non collaborative tasks.

A large wireless ad-hoc network of computers supporting complicated task performance.

A network-based security protection system to allow identification of otherwise undetected threats to different information technology systems.

Capacity planning tools comparison and assessment to a governmental agency with especially large information network.

Worked with mainframes and supercomputers on various applications.

In the last 10 years has worked on:

Work on Internet technologies such as data warehousing, electronic commerce, automatic negotiation, and interrelationships between computers in large information systems.

Substantial experience with large information system such as the large systems used the various consumer credit report companies that employ many mainframes, communication network, e-business, extremely large mainframes, etc.

EDUCATION

PhD Computer Science, University of California, San Diego

MS Computer Science, University of California, San Diego

BS Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

EXPERT WITNESS in LEGAL CASES (Sample)

Shaughnessy Borowski & Gagner – (Philip Ganger)

CTI Inc. v. Software Cartesians

Served as an expert witness for Software Cartesians. The latter consisted of programmers that left CTI to establish their own company producing a similar application program. The defense argued: although the programs were similar, no IP of CTI was used in the development of Software Cartesians application.

The applications were written in C and C++ and were over 10,000 lines of code.

Judge deemed our technical arguments more convincing than those of the opposing expert.

Pettit and Martin (extinct law firm)

Hewlett Packard v. GTE government systems

Served as an expert witness for GTE in a case of a government contract award.

Our analysis of the Army’s RFP showed a clear ambiguity of a critical requirement. We tested the requirement, sanitized to hide all details, on a large group of students. The group revealed two contradictory interpretations. We recommended restatement of the RFP. 

Army decided to reconsider (unaware of our concurrence).

Cohen and White(David Cohen)

Sun Microsystems v. Harris

Supported an expert witness for Harris in a case of evaluation performance of a large system.

Our task was restricted to the simulation of millions of customers of a network of computers dispersed all over the world.

Harris lost on judge's decision of no ground for the claim.

Steptoe and Johnson – (William J. Koegel) 1995

CACI v. Pentagen

Served as an expert witness for CACI. Pentagen claimed that their process was stolen by CACI. We showed that Pentagen claim is baseless.

The case involved a rarely used programming language and the technical foundations were also quite esoteric.

Won in summary judgment.

Piper and Marbury – (Richard P. Rector)

Sun Microsystems v. Digital

Served as an expert witness for DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) in a case of a government contract award.

Scope of work was limited to marginal issues of the case. Another expert who also wrote the final report handled the central issues. We did not concur with the final report.

Lost on judge's decision to support Sun Microsystems.

Shaughnessy Borowski & Gagner - (Philip Ganger)

Bulk Mailing v. Frederic Mailing

Served as an expert witness for Frederic Mailing.

Showed that Bulk Mailing had a large investment in substantial application while Frederic Mailing had a small 3rd Generation application. Bulk Mailing realized that there is no ground for the lawsuit.

Sides settled with Bulk Mailing paying full expenses.

Ober Kaler – (John E. Steren) 1998-1999

Litton v. Tiburon

Served as an expert witness for Tiburon.

Litton claimed Tiburon's product is derived from PRC (Litton subsidiary) public safety and justice applications IP.

Case lasted more than 8 months and involved over four million lines of code in dozens of application all in the public safety and justice application area. Litton employed five software experts while Tiburon has one (us) only. In a complicated report we showed that some of the IP features were already in the public domain before both companies entered that business and the other claims were baseless.

Settled the night before trial with minor financial damage to Tiburon. Since Litton is an industry giant and Tiburon a small company, it was a great win for Tiburon and a great win over Howrey Simon Arnold & White (opposing counsel).

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae (A British Law Firm) 1999

A British registering company v. Pentagen technologies International

Served as an expert witness for the registering company.

The case was similar to the CACI v. Pentagen above. Done additional analysis and reporting as follow up to CACI v. Pentagen. The technology has changed since the 1995 case and the Pentagen had to be adopted to run and be evaluated.

Judge dismissed case due to British procedural issues.

Paleos and Krieger – (W. Steven Paleos) 2000

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Jon Honhart

Served as an expert witness for the defense of Jon Honhart who was indicted for breaking into the network of The Signature Group.

Expert report and testimony claimed that the security and event logs of the system are invalid and, therefore, the police has no evidence.

Jon Honhart was acquitted.

Morgan Lewis – (Robert J. Hollingshead) 2000-2001

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) v. Ansaldo (Italy)

Served as an expert witness for Ansaldo.

Case arbitrated before the ICC International Court of Arbitration. Evaluated, reported and testified on the software supporting steam generators. As a result, opposing software expert had to give up all the claims initially raised against Ansaldo’s software.

More than a year after the hearing only the software issue was resolved and in our side’s favor.

Falke & Dunphy (Ohio) (Kenneth Lazarus - Washington, DC) 2002

Americom v. Dayton Data Processing

We performed initial analysis to assess Americom’s application was part of Dayton Data Processing’s application.

Although this legacy application was written in an obsolete programming language and the potential defendant’s application was 10 times larger by this time, our preliminary work showed strong and convincing evidence of stolen actual code based on the identification of unique patterns in both applications.

Wiley Rein & Fielding – (Kevin P. Anderson) 2003

DataDirect technologies v. I-Net Software GMBH (Germany)

Served as an expert witness for DataDirect technologies.

Initial analysis indicated high likelihood that I-Net software is a copy.

Case was settled.

McKenna, Long & Aldridge -  (Thomas C. Papson) 2003

Lockheed Martin Information Systems (LMIS) protests the award of a contract to Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21970, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to acquire information technology services.

Evaluated Lockheed Martin’s proposal, EDS winning proposal and government decision documents. Found major flaws in government RFP document, decision process, knowledge of technology as well as the two proposals involved.

Protest was accepted.

  Sughrue Mion (Washington, DC) McQuire Woods (Chicago) (William H. Mandir) 2004

Eaton v. ZF-Meritor (Germany)

A patent case before The US International Trade Commission involves automatic transmissions for large trucks and buses.

Computers control the automatic transmissions of both companies. Evaluated, charted and testified on the patent claims raised by Eaton.

Pending