●● IRC: #techbytes @ FreeNode: Thursday, March 18, 2021 ●● ● Mar 18 [04:17] schestowitz__ "hey, why is #techrights now +m?" [04:19] schestowitz__ "i don't see any explanation in there" [04:19] schestowitz__ "just that you set +m" [04:19] schestowitz__ "let me read more, though" ● Mar 18 [05:31] schestowitz__
  • [05:31] schestowitz__
    Exploring my doorbell
    [05:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @ https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/56345.html">Exploring ) [05:31] schestowitz__
    [05:31] schestowitz__

    I've talked about my doorbell before, but started looking at it again this week because sometimes it simply doesn't send notifications to my Home Assistant setup - the push notifications appear on my phone, but the doorbell simply doesn't trigger the HTTP callback it's meant to[1]. This is obviously suboptimal, but it's also tricky to debug a device when you have no access to it.

    [05:32] schestowitz__

    Normally I'd just head straight in with a screwdriver, but the doorbell is shared with the other units in this building and it seemed a little anti-social to interfere with a shared resource. So I bought some broken units from ebay and pulled one of them apart. There's several boards inside, but one of them had a conveniently empty connector at the top with "TX", "RX" and "GND" labelled. Sticking a USB-serial [05:32] schestowitz__ converter on this gave me output from U-Boot, and then kernel output. Confirmation that my doorbell runs Linux, but unfortunately it didn't give me a shell prompt. My next approach would often me to just dump the flash and look for vulnerabilities that way, but this device uses TSOP-48 packaged NAND flash rather than the more convenient SPI NOR flash that I already have adapters to access. Dumping this sort of NAND isn't terribly hard [05:32] schestowitz__ but the easiest way to do it involves desoldering it from the board and plugging it into something like a Flashcat USB adapter, and my soldering's not good enough to put it back on the board afterwards. So I wanted another approach.

    • [05:54] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Mar 18 [06:44] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 18 [15:16] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616056491444#c7323827224162426234 [15:16] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [15:16] schestowitz__ " [15:16] schestowitz__ The composition of the Board not only includes the members responsible for drafting and proposing Art. 15a RPBA, having publicly taken and defended the position that VICOs appointed ex officio are allowed under Art. 116 EPC and that Art. 15a of the revised Rules of Procedure (not yet entered into force) merely clarifies an existing possibility (see Notice from the Boards of December 15, 2020). [15:16] schestowitz__ To complete the picture, parties have been summoned to oral procceedings to take place on May 28, 2021 to be heald as VICO. Instead of asking the parties whether they agree with a VICO, they are invited to inform the EBA whether they consider oral proceedings before the EBA not to be expedient and/or envisage not to attend oral proceedings, in which case a decision could be promptly issued, apparently in written proceedings. [15:17] schestowitz__ Honi soit qui mal y pense. [15:17] schestowitz__ " [15:18] schestowitz__ " [15:18] schestowitz__ According to documents now on the Register, the hearing is set for 28 May 2021. The composition of the EBA shall be: [15:18] schestowitz__ C. Josefsson [15:18] schestowitz__ I. Beckedorf [15:18] schestowitz__ W. van der Eijk (rapporteur) [15:18] schestowitz__ R. Arnold (external member) (i.e. Lord Justice Arnold) [15:18] schestowitz__ E. Chatzikos (external member) [15:18] schestowitz__ G. Eliasson [15:18] schestowitz__ A. Ritza [15:18] schestowitz__ Do we know which of these were involved in drafting the new RPBA? [15:18] schestowitz__ " [15:18] schestowitz__ "It is in the register now, confirming everything announced by the Anonymous commenter above. https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP04758381&tab=doclist" [15:18] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-register.epo.org | European Patent Register [15:19] schestowitz__ "I am sorry, but I can't share more details; the source is extremely reliable: you'll see that this is no joke, unfortunately. I could myself not believe it, when I was told, but I am not surprised." [15:19] schestowitz__ "I agree with Anon: RIP Rule of Law at the EPO. This is an outrage." [15:19] schestowitz__ "The summons is now on the register." [15:20] schestowitz__ " [15:20] schestowitz__ At the meeting where the BOAC "consulted" with users on the new Art 15A, the BOAC was strongly urged to amend the text of the article to make enforced attendance via VICO a purely temporary provision during the pandemic. These submissions were completely ignored on the basis (according to the notice published on 15 December 2020) that new Art 15A "merely clarifies an existing possibility" and thus is already compliant with the EPC. [15:20] schestowitz__ Present on behalf of the Boards at that meeting were the following members of the panel selected for hearing this appeal: [15:20] schestowitz__ C. Josefsson [15:20] schestowitz__ I. Beckedorf [15:20] schestowitz__ G. Eliasson [15:20] schestowitz__ A. Ritzka [15:20] schestowitz__ So that's a majority of the panel who have the appearance of partiality. Josefsson chairing the panel is beyond a joke. [15:20] schestowitz__ " [15:21] schestowitz__ "It would be interesting if Mr. Arnold and/or Mr. Chatzikos were to refuse to take part in what, on the face of it, is a kangaroo court." [15:21] schestowitz__ " [15:21] schestowitz__ "Where a regular member has participated in a case referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal or in a decision which is the subject of a referral of the President of the European Patent Office, the Chairman shall, after consulting the regular members (paragraph 1(a)), appoint as substitute a member from amongst the alternates (paragraph 1(b)) or an external legally qualified member in accordance with paragraph 5. The same applies if a [15:21] schestowitz__ regular member is prevented from participating." [15:21] schestowitz__ See: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2021/etc/se1/p3.html [15:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epo.org | EPO - II.1 Business distribution scheme of the Enlarged Board of Appeal for 2021 [15:21] schestowitz__ Arguably, none of the four should be appointed to the panel as they were involved in a matter which has led to the referral. Note the German text, "Hat ein stndiges Mitglied in einem Verfahren, das zur Vorlage an die Groe Beschwerdekammer gefhrt hat". [15:21] schestowitz__ " [15:22] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616067918782#c6578062020357692304 [15:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [15:22] schestowitz__ "" [15:22] schestowitz__ Merely taking a decision on exclusion and objection will no longer be enough to remove the taint of partiality from the EBA's handling of G 1/21. [15:22] schestowitz__ The Chairman announce for G 1/21, a Mr Josefsson, very clearly has a "personal interest" in the question of whether or not new Art 15a RPBA conflicts with the correct interpretation of Art 116 EPC. This is because, as one of the principal architects / supporters of new Art 15a RPBA, he would be professionally embarrassed if the EBA's answer to the question referred is "no". [15:22] schestowitz__ Art 24(1) EPC is very clear in stating that "Members of the Boards of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal may not take part in a case in which they have any personal interest". But Mr Josefsson has ALREADY taken part in G 1/21, by taking two very important decisions, relating to the composition of the EBA and the appointment (including timing and manner) of oral proceedings. [15:22] schestowitz__ Thus, there is a very strong argument that the actions taken by Mr Josefsson in connection with G 1/21 are already inconsistent with the EPC (ie unlawful). If one or more of the parties objects to conducting oral proceedings by VICO, then things could get a whole lot messier. [15:22] schestowitz__ " [15:23] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616062519816#c2093591809062665346 [15:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [15:23] schestowitz__ " [15:23] schestowitz__ If (ha, ha!) the EBA were to come to the decision that oral proceedings via ViCo without the agreement of the parties were not compatible with the EPC, then the decision of the EBA would also not be compatible and therefore of no legal effect. How do they propose to solve that conundrum, other than ruling that such a ViCo is compatible? [15:23] schestowitz__ Also, what is with the "bare minimum" two months and 10 days notice for oral proceedings? Hopefully, the regitered post to the UK will take a bit longer than 10 days to be delivered. [15:23] schestowitz__ " [15:23] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616060903499#c2354742904070282689 [15:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [15:24] schestowitz__ " [15:24] schestowitz__ It will be interesting to see how the EBA will deal with the interevention of epi. [15:24] schestowitz__ The question how to deal with objections of suspected partiality raised by third parties has already been settled by the EBA. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EBA, a decision on suspected partiality has to be taken without the members concerned participitating pursuant to Article 24(4) EPC, if the EBA has knowledge of a possible reason for objection which does not originate from a member himself or from any [15:24] schestowitz__ party. Under this provision the submissions of a third party with respect to a member of the Enlarged Board to be suspected of partiality under Article 24(3) EPC are taken as information on the basis of which the Board can ex officio look at the alleged grounds of suspicion of partiality (G 3/08, interlocutory decision of October 16, 2009, see also R 19/12). It may be that replacing the members concerned gives the participating [15:24] schestowitz__ external members a better chance to insist on observing established principles of the rule of law. [15:24] schestowitz__ " [15:24] schestowitz__ "It would be interesting if Mr. Arnold and/or Mr. Chatzikos were to refuse to take part in what, on the face of it, is a kangaroo court." ● Mar 18 [17:16] *GNUmoon has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [17:17] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 18 [19:11] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616085507500#c2530306367485093642 [19:11] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [19:11] schestowitz__ "The members in question participated in a decision which is the subject of a case referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: does Art. 2(3) apply anyway?" [19:12] schestowitz__ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616086980852#c7752923252216510277 [19:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [19:12] schestowitz__ "I.B. drafted the text accompanying the proposal for new art. 15a RPBA, but this something only the aficionados within the Boards know: there's nothing in the public records and it will be difficult to request that he be recused. But at least he is not the rapporteur." [19:12] schestowitz__ https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/board-of-appeal-in-t180715-continues.html?showComment=1616087058213 [19:12] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Board of Appeal in T1807/15 continues with ViCo oral proceedings referral - The IPKat [19:12] schestowitz__ "I can only agree with you..." [19:13] schestowitz__ " [19:13] schestowitz__ I think that you mean Art 3(3) RPEBA. And yes, it should apply here. [19:13] schestowitz__ Then again, the letter of the epi really ought to have led to Art 4 RPEBA being invoked: [19:13] schestowitz__ (1) If the Board has knowledge of a possible reason for exclusion or objection which does not originate from a member himself or from any party to the proceedings, then the procedure of Article 24, paragraph 4, EPC shall be applied. [19:13] schestowitz__ (2) The member concerned shall be invited to present his comments as to whether there is a reason for exclusion. [19:13] schestowitz__ (3) Before a decision is taken on the exclusion of the member, THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE. [19:13] schestowitz__ " ● Mar 18 [20:31] *GNUmoon has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) ● Mar 18 [22:51] *GNUmoon (~GNUmoon@gateway/tor-sasl/gnumoon) has joined #techbytes