• any royalties,
• the illegal profit, and
• triple damages,

and we will not exclude Google from licensing until the takeover is finalized in 5 years.
The management of Alphabet can already begin with working out the related formalities and informing its shareholders to become happy and make us happy. :)

We are also working on the takeovers of some other very well known companies and also lesser known companies, which will result in open mouthes and economical shock waves.

SOPR #147
We would like to share our thoughts about the following two topics:

Common licensing vs. damage compensation
We realized that

In relation to the second point we already complaint in the past that the technologies, goods, and services of legal entities mimic the features and overall appearance of our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system, Ontologic System, Ontoscope, and Ontologic Applications, as well as other works based on one or more of them mainly and merely differing in their realizations and descriptions.
This amounts to infringements of

and said legal entities are also liable for monetizing our works of art in various ways.
Consumers who expect to receive original and unique works of art created by C.S., for which we are known on national and international bases, will be disappointed when finding out about the true origin of the legal entities' imitations, which also causes irreparable damages to our reputation and goodwill.
Therefore it should be comprehensible that we attempt to recoup legal entities' alleged illegal profits and triple damages, the destruction of unauthorized hardware and software, and the complete and seamless re-establishment of our reputation (e.g. cleaning the complete World Wide Web and media), for sure on a worldwide basis.

In a comment made recently, we suggested as a potential solution that a compensation for the incurred damages could be up to 10% of the profit in addition to the other positions of the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), though we concluded later that this is neither reasonable nor feasible.
But what is the correct and also practicable way is the separation of both matters. Accordingly, the compensation of damages could be calculated either from the

as discussed in the last year and in the issue #128 of the 14th of July 2018, or

If this provision would be introduced, then we recommend all new customers, business partners, or members of our SOPR to take the first option, if possible.

Legal matters
We are also looking for possibilities where the amount of provisions in the AoA can be reduced to make it more liberal in the sense of 'Do what you want', for sure where

This is a great deal.

05.November.2018
Comment of the Day
"Friendly takeover", [C.S., Today]
By the way: Reasonable compensation does not mean moon price.

Ontologic Web Further steps
We added to our Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Transport as a Service (TaaS) platform the new subscription service dubbed Flight Pass following our original membership scheme of our MaaS and TaaS called Taxisharing.
Our deal allows passengers to avoid road traffic congestions and price surging, when costs rise at rush hour and other in-demand times. Eventually, the fixed-fare plan will cost 49.99 U.S. Dollar or 43.89 Euro a month in large metropolises (i.e. Los Angeles, U.S.A.) and 29.99 U.S. Dollar or 26.31 Euro in smaller cities.
We plan to expand the scheme to every city as quick as possible. We are also hoping our initiative will convince passengers that it is more economical to use our MaaS and TaaS, and to give up their own cars and preferred ride-hailing services.
We want to make our Flight Pass a reliable alternative to driving yourself or using a Peer-to-Peer (P2P) ridesharing service, which is also an affordable option people can use for their everyday transportation needs.

Flight Pass is a way to lock in consistent prices, on any flight, anywhere in a city, any time of day, for a monthly fee.
We estimate that users can save up to 10 hours a month on their current commuting.
Flight Pass offers discounted, fixed, rates on all our MaaS and TaaS in a given month.

The fare package will eventually include e-car, e-bike, and e-scooter access, if required at all.

06.November.2018
Ontologic Web Further steps
We dubbed the subscription service of our original membership scheme of our Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Transport as a Service (TaaS) called Taxisharing Taxi Pass (see also the issue #15 of the 24th of September 2017).
Our deal allows passengers to avoid price surging, when costs rise at rush hour and other in-demand times. Eventually, the fixed-fare plan will cost 2.49 U.S. Dollar or 2.19 Euro a month in large metropolises (i.e. Los Angeles, U.S.A.) and 1.49 U.S. Dollar or 1.29 Euro in smaller cities (e.g. Austin, Denver, Miami, and Orlando).
We plan to expand the scheme to other cities as quick as possible. We are also hoping our initiative will convince passengers that it is more economical to use our MaaS and TaaS, and to give up their own cars and preferred ride-hailing services.
We want to make our Taxi Pass a reliable alternative to driving yourself or using another Peer-to-Peer (P2P) ridesharing service, which is also an affordable option people can use for their everyday transportation needs.

Taxi Pass is a way to lock in consistent prices, on any ride, anywhere in a city, any time of day, for a monthly fee.
We estimate that users can save up to 90% a month on their current spending.
Taxi Pass offers discounted, fixed, rates on all our MaaS and TaaS in a given month, such as Flight Pass (see the Further steps of the yesterday).

The Los Angeles fare package will eventually include e-bike and e-scooter access.

07.November.2018
Ontonics Further steps
We have developed something against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Related tests were very successful and if specific properties are nearly the same, then it will work out of the petri dish.
We are also looking at something else as part of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) projects.
In fact, it is not the perfect solution we are working on as well. But it works extremely well and there is room for improvements and if it works who cares anyway?

In a subsequent step we synthesized a specific property of this solution and combined it with a different solution to make the approach more flexible and general eventually.

17:34, 19:40, 22:04, and 28:24 UTC+1
SOPR #148

*** Work in progress - 2 links to SOPR issues missing ***
In the last days, the following topics got a certain importance for us, so that we addressed them (once again):

Interoperability
In the last days we made a short review of the very few provisions related to interoperability (see the issues #... of the ...) and concluded that they are sufficient at least for the next future. But we noted some inconsistencies in understanding and problems of comprehension in this relation, so that we would like to take the moment to repeat some of the foundational principles, as we already said a few times in the past.
Combining or integrating voice-based systems and virtual assistants with other systems, platforms, products, applications, and services is legal as long as they are not related or have no causal link with an essential part of the original and unique, characteristic expression of our Ontologic System and also our Ontoscope, which also belongs to the overall Ontologic System.
But this legal situation changes to the opposite when for example a

because according to the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) such a combination or integration belongs to the infrastructure of our SOPR and have to be combined or integrated on our SOPR platform.

Bend time and space
As we already discussed a few times in the past as well, the strategy taken by other legal entities does not work very well anymore and we will not accept a push through of any illegally accquired advantage, walled garden, and so on. This would have been acceptable if done before the end of October 2006. We are sorry to say, but it cannot be our problem and it is not our problem, because it was just only an illegal trick of an illegal strategy.
Honestly, we have not found a convincing solution to handle the situation and those solutions presented by us have been circumvented or even counteracted more or less in a short period of time.
Therefore, we suggest to bend time and space, which means we would give the following deadlines to restore the correct situation:
7 years until 31st of December 2025 to unify Instant Messaging (IM), communications services, etc.,
7 years until 31st of December 2025 to unify distributed ledgers, cryptocurrencies, etc.,
7 years until 31st of December 2025 to unify AR, VR, MR environments and systems, mirror worlds, digital earth twins, etc.,
12 years until 31st of December 2030 to unify voice-based systems, intelligent assistants, SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Computer Vision (CV), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing System(SCS), etc.), etc.,
12 years until 31st of December 2030 to unify app stores, (big) data marketplaces, etc.,
17 years until 31st of December 2035 to unify Distributed Systems (DSs) (Peer-to-Peer (P2P), grid, cloud, edge, web, mobile computing platforms, etc.), etc.,

in the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) platforms respectively Ontologic System (OS).
After these dates the licensing should terminate for all technologies (e.g. systems), goods, and services, that are not integrated.
Nevertheless, we are thinking about the option of introducing a pool and other measures once again, so that every participating entity gets its share in accordance with efforts accomplished and services performed (see also the issue SOPR #142 of the 1st of October 2018).
This does not mean that for example

are apparently dead already, but merely that sooner or later technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services will be unified under the umbrella of our SOPR if they are parts of the overall OS.

Takeovers
We are working on several takeovers of more or less known companies for making our SOPR even better for everybody.
At least the company Google is informed about our interest and we would be very happy to get any suggestions for further procedure.

There can be only one. There will be only one. The OS.

08.November.2018

01:25, 14:57, 17:48, and 19:12 UTC+1
SOPR #149

*** Work in progress ***
We had some movements and most potentially confusions in the last days, which resulted in a more clarified and solidified state of the Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Legal matter
As is already the case with the company Google, we also suggest that the companies Amazon and Facebook pay a 5% of their overall revenue because their systems, platforms, products, applications, and services cannot be differentiated very easily and well from our OS, Os, and OAOS anymore. But we leave it up to them to keep their items separated if this might still be possible at all.
At this point, we also would like to repeat that their customers are our customers as well.

Common licensing vs. damage compensation
As initially discussed and decided, the compensation of damages includes the royalties that are due for several past few years.

We are thinking about connecting it with the option to buy shares up to the ratio of the overall revenue or profit to the revenue or profit generated with the OS, Os, OAOS, and other related works created by C.S. (see issues #138 of the 28th of August 2018 and #146 of the 31st of October 2018).
The licensing will be approved only after receiving the compensation of damages.

New member
We have a new member of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR):

The company is active in the fields of financial management, Human Resource Management (HRM), and cloud computing, and made the following acquisations since the year 2008:

In sum, Workday's systems, applications, and services have been shown to be Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) as well.

We are also sure that there are many more cloud computing platforms that owe us some royalties.

Style of Speed Further steps

We developed a new rotor, which can be used for various rotorcrafts.

09.November.2018
Ontologic Web Further steps
We have begun to expand the range of services of the communication platform integrated in our Ontologic System (OS) with cross-platform messaging and Voice over IP (VoIP) services. The platform allows the sending of text messages and voice calls, video calls, images and other media, documents, and user location, as well as its combination with other parts of our OS, such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA), and Mixed Reality (MR).

17:24, 20:17, 38:11 UTC+2
More evidences Facebook mimicking C.S. and C.S. GmbH

*** Work in progress - 1 or more links to former SOPR issues missing ***
Already one month ago, the social networking platform Facebook presented its series of smart displays, which have

In the following we quote a related report: "The Portal products automatically zoom in on users and follow them as they move, to offer a superior experience to existing smartphone and tablet apps.
The devices rely on Facebook Messenger to make and receive calls and also feature Amazon's Alexa smart assistant.
[...]
They use a 140-degree 12 megapixel camera to capture a relatively wide field-of-view, providing scope for on-device software to zoom in and track the users' movements.
In SmartCamera mode, the machines automatically reframe the image to take account of additional people entering the room.
But by tapping on a person's face, the user on the other end of the call enters Spotlight mode. This allows them to focus on an individual of their choosing, letting - for example - a grandmother follow her grandson even if his parent is the one talking.
Augmented reality graphics can be overlaid on to the image. Some are for comedic effect - for instance putting cat hats on people's heads. But the tech is also used for a selection of stories, which a parent can read from afar while relevant visual effects appear.
[...]
Users can also trigger songs from Spotify or Pandora to be played simultaneously on both their own Portal and the one receiving the call without causing an echo effect.
[...]
At launch, there will only be a small number of apps available, including:

For now, the firm has opted not to provide access to its Facebook or Instagram News Feeds or to provide an app store for other third-party products.
It also says adverts are not on its roadmap, although it acknowledged that in time on-device software could, for example, trigger a cat food promotion if it spotted a pet in shot.
[...]
"What is key to adoption is the network effect of knowing that there are people and homes that can be called by the device if one opts to invest.""

Especially remarkable are the points that

• is designed to be qualified for all rings and ID spaces of the IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) in contrast to its social networking platform and the video news platform, which are only allowed in the 5th and 6th rings and the assigned ID spaces (see the Ontonics Further steps of the 10th of July 2017), and
• features many essential elements of our Ontoscope (Os) and Ontologic Applications (OA),

but

Nevertheless, combining applications and services with

in this way is regulated by the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) (see for example the issues #... of the ..., SOPR #140 of the 9th of September 2018, and SOPR #148 of the 7th of November 2018) guarantees the interoperability of smart displays with or without integrated video call machine as well as other systems, platforms, products, applications, and services, which also implies that companies, like for example Amazon with its cloud computing platform, Web Services (WSs), and voice-controlled Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) service, are not our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) and will not be such an essential part of our OS.

At this point, we also would like to note once again that in the 1st to 4th rings and the assigned ID spaces only our own media platform is allowed, but not the lying press, other fabricated news media, and systems, platforms, applications, and services based on them, which

Monetize, generate revenue, and pay your fair share.

10.November.2018
Blockchain fraud will come to an end #7
Eric Schmidt said the following in a talk: "I think the most interesting stuff that's going on are the beginning of execution on top of blockchain - the most obvious example being the capability of ethereum. And if ethereum can manage to figure out a way to do global synchronization of that activity, that's a pretty powerful platform. That's a really new invention. [...] The bitcoin architecture - literally the ability to have these ledgers which can't be replicated - is an amazing advancement. Lots of people will build businesses on top of that."

Most of these statements is completely wrong, because there is no Bitcoin architecture and new invention at all. In fact, the

• validated, verified, validating, verifying, validatable, verifiable, cryptographically secured, and/or distributed log transaction systems and data stores with
• grid computing and volunteer computing

(see the Clarification of the 8th of March 2018, 5th of April 2018, 6th of April 2018, and 24th of September 2018), and

are merely two of the many original and unique properties of our Ontologic System (OS). In this relation, we recall that another kind of global synchronization is already included in a distributed ledger to decide which data record was entered in it before another one (see Nick Szabo).
In additon, our OS also includes the technique of the smart contract protocol by integrating

• validated and verified, and
• specification- and proof-carrying

and

with the field of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) (see also the Clarification of the 11th of May 2018).
Furthermore, do not confuse the phrase "being the capability" with a capability-based operating system included in our OS as well.

Neither Bitcoin nor Ethereum or anything related is an invention or revolution, and has a major potential or even a future due to the following reasons:

Therefore, we

anyway.
Having said this, there was, is and will be our OS only.

Do not fall prey to lousy loosers and self-exposers, clever but illegal marketing efforts, Ponzi schemes, incompetent media reports, and so on.
If that blockchain fraud has a major potential then for ending in many big and bitter tears.
And when Eric Schmidt, Vitalik Buterin, and others do not stop to damage our works of art and business activites, then they will be in very deep legal trouble.

Btw.: That conversation was done in September 2018, but a video was uploaded last week and its content was reported the first time on the 3rd of November 2018 and then repeated on the 8th and 9th of November 2018 by media specialized on fabricated news and fake news. Surprisingly, that manipulation of the public mind happened once again after we made some points clear.

11.November.2018
Comment of the Day
"At least, everybody is a happy winner.", [C.S., Today]

18.November.2018
Comment of the Day
"A digital clock is not a vision.", [C.S., Today]
Btw.: As is the case with a self-image, a vision respectively an unexpected and unforeseeable description of a development, like for example an ordinary technological progress, is always protected by the copyright and therefore no patent is required respectively achievable.
The politics, the industries, the media, and the sciences just failed to artificially construct an ordinary technological process because every of their single steps of development is an evidence that shows a causal link with our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S., as is the case with the other works of art and achievements based on them.
If an entity would like to reproduce and perform our works of art and achievements, then it has to acknowledge our copyright at first.
And if a company still does not want to acknowledge our copyright, then we will force it to print the phrase "Created by" or "Designed by" followed by the

on

Guess which products will be sold and services will be used.

Question of the Day
"Why is Goofy able to speak but not Pluto?", [C.S., Today]

20.November.2018

00:51, 22:09, 23:24, and 24:00 UTC+1
SOPR #150

*** Work in progress - better wording, some links to SOPR issues missing ***
We already talked several times about the issue that when we

then various problems arise such as for example:

• make our works of art propritary through walled gardens and
• get or keep the market dominance,

Furthermore,

• taken all their advantages all the time and
• have also begun to split our Intellectual Properties (IPs) among each other some years ago,

but

Therefore, one must not be an expert in the field of economics to conclude that we cannot and will not open our OS and our Os completely. Nevertheless, we thought about a good middle way and concluded that the right balance is to impose no restrictions related to the infrastructure of the OS and instead allow competition and support interoperability. Correspondingly, we have thought again about the subjects

(see the related sections below).

Integration app vs. ON, OW, and OV aaS
We would like to recall that the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR regulate the following obligations, and uniting and unifying systems (see the issues #..., #..., and #131 of the 1st of August 2018, and the last three sections of the Clarification of the 5th of April 2018) among others:

• common (sense) and social knowledge, and
• integration of service index and data index,

• search,
• discovery,
• collaboration, and
• integration,

by our SOPR on our ON, OW, and OV platforms ideally provided as a Service (aaS) based on Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), such as for example

• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and
• Industry 4.0 (including ontologies as well),

and

This should be sufficient to lead the whole endeavour in a way that is harmonious, ordered, and advantageous for every participating entity.

Simply said members of the SOPR

• provide the infrastructure of the ON, OW, and OV {platforms}, as well as the SOPR platform, specifically the overlay network,
• get a market dominance,
• abuse a market power,
• etc..

under its own management for a share of the overall revenue generated in this way.

Integration apps can be implemented and distributed, but the single functions and services have to be provided and registered in a way that they can be integrated with other services as part of the interoperability by our SOPR.

Infrastructure service option
Besides commissioning work to operate the infrastructure of the ON, OW, and OV {platforms}, as well as the SOPR platform, which are kept under control, managed, and provided by the SOPR, we were also thinking about the extension of the License Model (LM) with an additional licensing option that would give an external entity respectively member of the SOPR the allowance to provide this operation of infrastructure comprising for example services for

under own management for a share of the gross profit minus all expenses except for interest, amortization, depreciation and taxes, but including (re)investment costs, etc. generated in this way (business economists know what we mean).
Because

the same majority ratio is suggested by us as the share of the Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) plus (re)investment costs, etc. generated in this way, that would be in the range of 55 to 66.7% of the earnings, though 75% of the earnings after tax are also reasonable.
But as longer we thought about this additional licensing option as more and more uncertain we were becoming about the question whether we should give up the initial plan to also manage and provide the infrastructure by the SOPR. {what is better for everybody? common preference is practicable solution} We get interoperability and openess and also innovation and competition anyway.

These considerations let us once again to the issue #25 of the 6th of October 2017 where we "[...] suggest[ed] that we should incorporate our management structure of our ON, OW, and OV with its rings and assigned ID spaces into the license model." Maybe we will explain this thought in more detail in a future issue.

Eventually,

Legal matter
Some weeks ago, we asked the company Google to provide a proposal until the 31st of December 2018 that answers the question how the company will substitute open source software with software that can be licensed in an acceptable way by our SOPR.
Today, we also ask the companies Amazon, IBM, Intel, and Facebook to do the same until the 28th of February 2019.

A member of our SOPR is not allowed to make a profit with collecting our royalties.

The appointed deadline for signing the SOPR agreement is the 31st of December 2018 (see the issue SOPR #126 of the 10th of July 2018) but we do not expect anymore that we can hold this date.

Now we have a

• on the one hand wee also announced to stop the SOPR and give the whole case to the prosecutors after this deadline is expired, that is not our fault because we wasted several months of precious time with investigations and documentations of serious older and actual issues, but
• on the other hand we also promised to sent an invitation letter, which is not the problem of external entities,

and

• let representatives of the states investigate and decide, or
• choose the common preference that is a practicable, unbureaucratic solution.

Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continues
As not expected otherwise, additional illegal asynchronous functionality was stolen and added by a member of the Linux Foundation and employee of the company Facebook instead of removing the illegal code.
We quote a description from a related email: "Up until now, IO polling has been exclusively available through preadv2 and pwrite2, both fully synchronous interfaces. This works fine for completely synchronous use cases, but that's about it. If QD=1 wasn't enough read the performance goals, the only alternative was to increase the thread count. Unfortunately, that isn't very efficient, both in terms of CPU utilization (each thread will use 100% of CPU time) and in terms of achievable performance.
With all of the recent advances in polling (non-irq polling, efficiency gains, multiple pollable queues, etc), it's now feasible to add polling support to aio - this patchset just does that.
An iocb flag is added, IOCB_FLAG_HIPRI, similarly to how we have RWF_HIPRI for preadv2/pwritev2. It's applicable to the commands that read/write data, like IOCB_CMD_PREAD/IOCB_CMD_PWRITE and the vectored variants. Submission works the same as before.
The polling happens off io_getevents(), when the application is looking for completions. That also works like before, with the only difference being that events aren't waited for, they are actively found and polled on the device side.
The only real difference in terms of completions is that polling does NOT use the libaio user exposed ring. This is just not feasible, as the application needs to be the one that actively polls for the events.
[...]
Performance results have been very promising. For an internal Facebook flash storage device, we're getting 20% increase in performance, with an identical reduction in latencies. Notably, this is testing a highly tuned setup to just turning on polling. I'm sure there's still extra room for performance there. Note that at these speeds and feeds, the polling ends up NOT using more CPU time than we did without polling!
On that same box, I ran microbenchmarks, and was able to increase peak performance 25%. The box was pegged at around 2.4M IOPS, with just turning on polling, the bandwidth was maxed out at 12.5GB/sec doing 3.2M IOPS. All of this with 2 millions LESS interrupts/seconds, and 2M+ less context switches.
In terms of efficiency, a tester was able to get 800K+ IOPS out of a _single_ thread at QD=16 on a device. These kinds of results are just unheard of in terms of efficiency."
"Polled IO doesn't support the user mapped completion ring. Events must be reaped through the io_getevents() system call. For non-irq driven poll devices, there's no way to support completion reaping from userspace by just looking at the ring. The application itself is the one that pulls completion entries."
This is very similar to the exception-less system call mechanism presented with VirtuOS (see the Investigations::Multimedia of the 15th of May 2018), which was shown to be a plagiarism of our kernel-less asynchronous system call mechanism and modules for operating systems and distributed systems, and our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) eventually based on the Zero Ontology O# (see the Clarification of the 27th of July 2018).

But this is not all. Another aspect is that

• notes Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb started of the 23rd of May 2018 and Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb continued of the 14th of August 2018 and 7th of September 2018,
• Clarification of the 27th of July 2018, 4th of June 2018, and 21st of October 2018, and
• Investigations::Multimedia of the 28th of October 2018

that

For sure, Christop Hellwig is attending again at that gatecrash. It seems to be that

But what makes these issues a human tragedy is the point that they even present the huge efficieny gains as their achievements. Is not it, Jens Axboe of Facebook?
In this relation, we also quote the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and chairman of the company Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, to show once again that the whole company is aware about our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and the legal situation: "A lot of what we are trying to do is architect the systems to give people really good privacy too."
We also note that the companies Google and Facebook are constructing data centers in Danmark, which depend on open source software of the Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, and our SOPR. Denmark? kernel.dk? J. Axboe?

We have not given the allowance to implement this functionality and even put an essential part of our system architecture, including our kernel-less asynchronous modules, exception-less system call mechanism, and kernel-less asynchronous system call mechanism under an open source license.

21.November.2018
Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb continues
As not expected otherwise, that company Scylladb also takes part in the mess documented in the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continues of the 20th of November 2018 (yesterday) once again by announcing to integrate that next stolen feature in an illegal software library as well, which is already investigated by us and shows more causal links to our works of art. Its developer Benny Halevy and Jens Axboe find it even funny to provocate together even more.

As we already said in the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb started of the 23rd of May 2018, our legal team is already after that company as well in relation to several issues, specifically for

• kernels of the operating systems
  • Unix and
  • Linux,

  and

• Distributed System (DS) paradigms
  • grid computing and
  • cloud computing,

• works of art and
• achievements,

• damage the reputation and corporation of C.S. and our corporation,
• conduct carefully worked out gatecrashes, and
• blackmail C.S. and our corporations,

as well as

Honestly, we do not see a bright future for those plagiarists, because in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) we

• technologies (e.g. systems and platforms),
• products (e.g. applications), and
• services

  based on

• illegal hardware and software

anyway, and demand the members to act correspondingly,

due to the reason that such activities are viewed as a deliberately conducted attempt to disturb the goals or even threaten the integrity of our SOPR (see also the issue SOPR #126 of the 10th of July 2018).

We will not make any further concessions. Therefore, if that code is not removed and everybody is moving behind the white, yellow, and red line again, then we will consider to

Having said this, we are always happy to

• ideal,
• order,
• harmony,
• morality,
• peace, and
• vision, as well as
• consensus, and
• win-win situation,

and

:)

22.November.2018
SOPR #151
This issue is focused on the following topics:

Patent system
Since many years, others and we are observing bizarre incidents and acts in relation to others and our patent applications. Due to these observations we have already begun several months ago to

Open source
The copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation have to be respected unconditionally, or nobody needs to respect the copyrights and other rights, including patent rights of other entities, specifically in relation to entertainment, and hardware and software.

Furthermore, no troll, politician, or other entity will misuse open source hardware and software as a political, scientifical, economical, or even criminal weapon against C.S. and our corporation, as well as our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
Therefore, the responsible members of the Linux Foundation, Apache Foundation, and other open source foundations have to comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS), or there is no common ground for a collaboration between their member companies and our SOPR (see also the issues #126 of the 10th of July 2018 and #129 of the 23rd of July 2018, and the notes Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation and Scylladb continued of the 7th of September 2018 and Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation started of the 12th of October 2018).
Especially, the infringing code in the

has to be removed again, because they will not become a legal loophole or even a blueprint for legal loopholes.

If the guidelines of the AoA and the ToS are not met, then we have to

• reproduction of the OS and Os, and
• performance of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

• hardware and software patents or
• open source hardware and software licenses not accredited by our SOPR,

or

• we never had a consensus,
• always failed to help, and
• only 1 winner exists.

24.November.2018
Ontonics Superstructure #19
While others are playing with toy planes and fiddling around with other things, our business unit Style of Speed together with us

for our 3D infrastructure, which are

than other solutions available at the market (see also the issue Superstructure #18 of the 13th of July 2018).

In this way we can increase our

• high-speed and -bandwith connectivity,
• high-precision monitoring and surveillance, and
• many more advanced and new utilizations of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs),

and

even much faster and better than initially thought and planned.

Style of Speed Further steps
We improved two engines that will become instantly the new industry standard after their presentation due to their many advantages such as

25.November.2018

05:21 and 29:xy UTC+1
SOPR #152

*** Work in progress - maybe some links to SOPR issues missing ***
In this issue we are discussing a little about the topics:

IATBA of the EC
The European Commission (EC) has begun to set a forum up, which is called International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications (IATBA), and "to develop a reliable, secure, and resilient European infrastructure for blockchain services, that complies with [or is conform to] the highest standards in relation to data protection, cybersecurity, interoperability, and energy efficiency, and is fully compatible [or consistent] with the EU law".
Obviously, the European Commission has reflected once again our

What makes the EC also less trustworthy once again are the other facts that it

In fact, we already have our worldwide acting SOPR for licensing and managing our

• having the basic properties of (mostly) being
  • cognitive,
  • reflective,
  • predictive,
  • proactive,
  • collaborative,
  • validated and verified, and by the reflective property validating and verifying, and
  • specification- and proof-carrying,

  and

• including systems like for example
  • Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs) based on for example a
    • Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) protocol,
    • Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) method,
    • smart contract protocol, or
    • blockchain technique,

    specifically

    • distributed ledgers,
    • validated and verified, and validating and verifying digital forms, including
      • ontologies, protocols, and rules for enterprise, business, and commerce, specifically for
        • management,
        • e-commerce, and
        • finance,

        such as for example

      • validated and verified, and validating and verifying Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), and
      • ontology-oriented contracts and ontologic contracts,

      and

    • cryptocurrencies,

• Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) platforms, as well as
• SOPR platforms,

and

• Electronic Commerce System (ECS), including Marketplace for Everything (MfE) platform, and
• Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), including
  • digital currencies,

that have already set the related best foundations and highest standards in for example the fields of

Nevertheless, we understand the motivations and requirements for regulatory measures in this case of blockchain-based applications and related blockchain-based technologies (e.g. systems and platforms) and services as well and also welcome the suggestion to introduce blockchain partnerships between

in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, as in the case of the suggestion to introduce data partnerships between

(see also the related sections of the issue SOPR #131 of the 1st of August 2018) (see once again the issue SOPR #131 of the 1st of August 2018 and also the issues SOPR #141 of the 16th of September 2018 and SOPR #145 of the 15th of October 2018).

Having said this, the

• keep the various political, legal, and economical interests separate, and
• always treat the interests of our SOPR with
  • a higher, or better said, the highest priority and
  • full compatibility or consistency with the law,

• sign the SOPR agreement for
  • reproducing and performing, as well as licensing, and
  • enyoing all advantages and benefits

    of our original and unique,

    • iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and
    • superior Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR),

and

• follow national laws and international agreements as well,
• respect the copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation instead of infringing them once again, as we have observed and documented it in the fields of
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • robotics,
  • grid computing and cloud computing, and
  • validated and verified, and validating and verifying systems, specifically
    • blockchain-based systems, and
    • distributed ledgers,
• acknowledge and appreciate our voluntary and liberal concessions, specifically the
  • opening of our OS and its platforms by following a balance between market liberalization and deregulation vs. artistic freedom, vision, and expression,
  • licensing of our Intellectual Properties (IPs) on the basis of our very business-friendly License Model (LM) by following the Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms,
  • managing respectively planning, controlling, executing, and monitoring the infrastructures and platforms of our ON, OW, and OV, as well as our SOPR,
  • etc.,
• respect our neutrality, and
• avoid
  • infringements of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, specifically by
    • licensing a reproduction or a performance of our Ontologic System (OS) or our Ontoscope (Os) under a license not accredited by our SOPR,
    • keeping under control, managing, and providing the infrastructures and platforms of our ON, OW, and OV, as well as our SOPR,
    • imitating our SOPR by pursuing its business strategy, or
    • acting in other ways that are
      • questioning the competency,
      • disturbing the goals, or
      • even threatening the integrity

      of our SOPR comprehensively, substantially, profoundly, seriously, and existentially,

  • reductions of the scope of protection for our OS and our Os by
    • regulations,
    • standardizations of elements of our OS and our Os,
    • etc.,
  • overlaps of
    • competences,
    • responsibilities,
    • procedures, and
    • other activities,
  • conflicts and collisions of interests,
  • turf wars,
  • influences of lobbyism,
  • attempts to substitute our SOPR in the short, medium, or long term with just another organization, association, or society merely kept under control by other entities,
  • illusions to have found a
    • legal loophole or
    • way to reign in our SOPR,
  • intransparencies,
  • aids and benefits for fraudulent entities, and
  • other unwanted political activities.

Introduction of discussed provisions
The status of the introduction of a Localized License Model (LLM) has changed from * to **.

*** definitely
** very likely
* potentially

29.November.2018

14:32 and 31:xy UTC+1
More evidences Amazon mimicking C.S. and C.S. GmbH

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
The company Amazon is holding its annual event and presented the newest developments of its Amazon Web Services (AWS), such as the following ones:

• Amazon Quantum Ledger Database, which is a fully-managed ledger database with a central trusted authority, and
• Amazon Managed Blockchain, which allows users to create and manage scalable blockchain networks using both Ethereum or HyperLedger,

The company also provides AWS Identity and Access Management web service already, that has the features of an IDentiy and Access Management System (IDAMS).
Obviously, the Amazon Managed Blockchain of the BaaS, AWS Control Tower, and AWS Security Hub are based on our

and also reflects the ..., which is also based on our MP2P.
An interesting note at the sideline is the statement of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the AWS, which supports others and our point of view: "Even though we have a lot of customers that run blockchain on top of us ... we just hadn't seen that many blockchain examples that couldn't just be solved by a database".

Furthermore, we are not sure if the AWS Ground Station service complies with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, because it seems to be that Amazon is

Another new development related to our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System is the

• metadata (e.g. ontologies),
• prescriptive security policies and access controls,
• and so on.

Needless to say, that the Data Lake as a Service (DLaaS) is also based on our Ontologic System Components (OSC) and integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

In addition, several business partners of AWS have also presented their new applications and services, which is important to note here as well due to the reasons that

• supports them technically, financially, and strategically, and also
• integrates them into its ecosystem.

One exemplary businsess partner presented a data store that is

Another exemplary businsess partner presented a system management tool ...
integrated with its IDAMS, 360, IoT, cybersecurity, ..., Elastic Container Registry (ECR)

Also very important for us is to know how our OSC are reproduced and performed, as well as accounted.

• small fixed fee for each reproduction of the related parts of our OS respectively OSC and
• share of 5% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our OAOS on top of said data stores and tools.

• share of 5% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

though we already suggested 5% of the overall revenue generated with the whole AWS, because

Especially interesting for us is the point that "[i]n November 2010, it was reported that all of Amazon.com's retail sites had been completely moved under the AWS umbrella. [21 [2011 AWS Tour Australia, Closing Keynote: How Amazon.com migrated to AWS, by Jon Jenkins. Amazon Web Services. July 14, 2011]]", and the online shop and the marketplace of Amazon are already based on the AWS, as can be seen with the

We would also like to note that Amazon FreeRTOS, which is the operating system FreeRTOS with libraries for IoT support, specifically for AWS, is not for free anymore due to the fact that AWS includes so much of our OSC, OSA, and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) now, and therefore a fixed fee for each reproduction of our OSC in the variant Amazon FreeRTOS is also due.

Since years we are observing what we already anticipated more than 12 years ago: Amazon is replicating our Ontologic System and our Ontoscope with its walled garden hardware, software, and services, specifically tablet computer, smart speakers and smart displays, and also AWS.
But there are limits:

interoperability vs. infrastructure

In most of the cases the customers of AWS are also our customers (e.g. Netflix).
Potentially, we extend the rule of accounting, so that an end entity can choose if the accounting of our royalties is done by Amazon or directly with us.
Amazon is responsible that customers do not do prohibited things with its AWS.

Btw.: The company Amazon is representative for the whole industry sector. What has been said above holds for every other company as well.

30.November.2018

09:35
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM

• George Anadiotis,
• Stephanie Condon,
• Asha McLean,
• Scott Fulton III, and
• Larry Dignan,

and correspondingly

According to the Articles of Association (AoA) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), an entity of the media will be removed from our blacklist if she/he/it reports in 10 consecutive years at least one time in every month about the true history of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) or correctly about our OS and our Os or both.

What makes us wonder is that so many media companies are neither interested in the facts nor in the copyright, but instead act in such serious criminal ways.

We want clean infos.