Increase of royalties

Due to the so-called "Aspen Skiing" ruling and most potentially other rulings of courts, we are not allowed to be nice but have to set the royalties to the levels common in the related market sectors, which would be shares of 30 to 40% or even 55 to 75%, just right from the start in a final agreement or contract.

We are also considering to increase the shares of 5% and 10% by 5 to 10 and 15% of the overall revenue generated with the

Maybe, we take this regulative measure only in relation to those few countries, that have too many entities that are unable to collaborate.

Revision of AoA and ToS
We are also considering another revision or change of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), so that we can

because we are allowed to act in this way by law.
In fact, even a monopolist is allowed to make an exclusive contract with another entity.

But the whole situation leads once again to the questions if our SOPR

Maybe, such a foundation would be regained if the share is increased, while the same conditions, concessions, and regulations are kept.

Measures against disturbing entities
We are investigating which measures are appropriated in the case of activities of a specific entity that is

If an entity holds on to its basic strategy, comprising the

then we think the only viable and sustainable measure is its exclusion with all the legal implications.
Needless to say, that this measure would have far-reaching implications for other members of our SOPR as well, that collaborate with such an entity or use services of such an entity, such as for example an armed force or a manufacturer with a cloud computing platform or an ATM system.
Luckily, we have prepared alternatives. For example, an armed force or a manufacturer can use the cloud computing platforms or the ATM system of our subsidiaries and our eligible and highly competent SOPR members wherever and whenever they need and want to in accordance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR.

We are also thinking about the unwanted or even prohibited activities of an entity that is

• geometric approach to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML),
• utilization of advanced Computer Vision (CV) for detecting cancer, and
• advanced Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) based on our OntoBot component including on-device execution,

• provide a proposal that suggests how it will solve its problems with illegal Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS), and
• remove illegal open source software,

• in a lower royalty directly by reducing the revenue artificially with older variants of its Android based on our OSC and cheaper smartphones based on our OsC, and
• less data transmission over the infrastructure of our SOPR by processing data directly on a device.

Moreover, we are thinking about another specific activity of two entities that is odd somehow, unwanted, and raises several very serious questions, because the

In all those cases, it is obvious that companies and other entities refuse to collaborate in honest, reliable, and friendly ways but instead prefer methods of terror, war, looting, annexation, and slavery, and therefore it is very questionable or even not believable if companies will act in compliance with the regulations of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR and our other collecting societies.
For example, one regulation demands to collect our royalties for us without additional charge. But the foundation for trust is not given anymore, which has even many more negative implications.

Unfortunately, we have wasted the last 8 months only for those kinds of unwanted or even prohibited activities done by a handful of entities that generally refuse to obey to rules and reality, and we are not willing to accept and handle that anymore.

02.June.2019
Ontonics Further steps
We decided for a default grace period of maximal 20 years for every work, which is

no matter what the work is.
As said in the last past, a grace period beigns with the date when the first royality is payed but not when it is used in other commercial ways, for example by presenting or discussing it on a commercial website of us.
As long as a grace period is in effect, a work of art will not be copied, imitated, misinterpreted, or used in any other unwanted way, whereby unwanted means that it is sufficient if C.S. feels harmed, cheated, tricked, betrayed, etc..
The contractual penalty is

of every entity involved in an infringement. For example, not only a start-up but also all of its investors and customers are affected by the contractual penalty.
Needless to say, any right of any other entity is not affected.

02:19, 03:23, 14:57, 23:21, and 24:34 UTC+2
SOPR #183

In this issue we have to give very interesting informations about the following topics:

Revision of AoA and ToS
Thanks to the permanent foul plays of companies, some politicians, the media, and other entities, that only have the intention to disturb the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR, we decided for a complete revision of 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). Everything is on the table again, with the exception that we do not sell. :)

As one of the first consequences, the royalties, which are shares of 5% and 10%, are history.
Instead, we have the opinion that the

• 17.5% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our standard Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and
• 25% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our meta Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

which are based on our OSC and our OsC, and

are Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

We have also the opinion to still allow the

by external entities instead of an exclusive utilization and performance by our SOPR, because the latter would not be fair for all the many entities that comply with the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR.
For sure, we would

Needless to say, Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) are not covered by this consideration and still have to be removed.

In general, we recommend to

• is highly interesting for companies in general and
• acts as an opener of doors that are shut, secret, or both in particular.

Overlaps and interfaces with public and federal duties, tasks, and services,
At first, we had no idea how to handle the overlap of and the interface between

are put into practice under the exclusive management and control of either

but not under the management and control of any other entity.
As also already discussed in the issue #182 of the 1st of June 2019, shares of joint ventures established by public and federal institutes and authorities, and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as one group of joint partners and any other entities as other group of joint partners, have to be transferred to our corporation under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Needless to say that our credo "All or nothing at all. Now and not in the future." is in effect in this case as well.

Recall of legal matter
As part of our monthly recall of legal matter, we would like to give the reminder that some of the major charges are

• undermining the national and international governments and
• destabilizing the public order of societies,

• disrupting and even impeding freedom of choice, innovation, and fair competition,
• realizing complots, and
• blackmailing.

But many of the other charges are quite heavy as well.

We are firmly convinced that we will win at least 10% of the 11 to 12 cases. But due to the overwhelming body of evidence, which is expected to become even more exhaustive and serious during the proceedings at the courts and by the market regulators, we are convinced that we will win 75 to 100% of all cases without making compromises and concessions.
Eventually, only the height of the damage compensations in dispute. But even with only a three-year retroactive assertion, it will become extremely heavy for most of the defendants and will have further legal consequences, like for example many lawsuits filed by cheated shareholders.
But in both relations 10% are sufficient to act very effectively against rude entities, fraudsters, and rogues, and their henchmen, collaborators, and supporters as well as followers.

We decided to urge the juridical institutions of nations and international unions to put their laws into practice entirely, uncompromisingly, and relentlessly.
We are also considering to offer all principal or crown witnesses a reasonable benefit.

© Oggy

If an entity wants to communicate, then we will keep the real mailbox slot open. But we will not sell and we will not make any further concessions.
Is there anybody else without a ticket?

03.June.2019
Question of the Day
"How can one reject the perfect happy deal?"
Even more curious, absurd, and ridiculous becomes such an act when the perfect happy deal was especially made, or better said, bent as far as acceptable for the advantage of said one, while governments are willing to sell or burn even their best corporations to get their happy deals.

For example, our successor of the Internet, which is our Ontologic Net (ON), our successor of the World Wide Web (WWW), which is our Ontologic Web (OW), our New Reality (NR), which is our Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and all the many other Ontologic System Components (OSC) are based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) as well as other modalities. This means that Apple's Siri, Google's Assistant, Amazon's Alexa, Microsoft's Cortana, Samsung's Bixby, and every other voice-based Multimedia User Interface (MUI) and even every other Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) are completely obsolete because the

Until yesterday, we allowed every licensee or member of our SOPR to control and manage and even operate their clones without any interference of us, but since yesterday this is not the case anymore in general.
But this is not the only part of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) where we have exactly the same situation and C.S. has no reason to modify or even destroy works of art at all ot change a situation.

SOPR #184
We forgot to mention another change in relation to the topic:

Revision of AoA and ToS
We would also like to mention that with the revision of 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), that we have begun with the issue #183 of the 2nd of June 2019 (yesterday), comes another change:

We decided that we accept only those regulated and unregulated digital currencies in our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), that were introduced and are managed by

We have the legal right for such a decision, because blockchain-based ledgers, distributed ledgers, and comparable validated and verified, validateable and verifiable, and validating and verifying technologies are

of our Ontologic System and hence are also included in all related goods and services.

04.June.2019

06:47 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"I never thought that I would have to fight for my basic rights in Europe and North America.", [C.S., Sometimes]

05:56, 09:30, and 12:44 UTC+2
SOPR #185

*** Proof-reading mode ***
We discussed the listed topics:

Legal matter

As we already recalled in the issue #184 of the 3rd of June 2019 (yesterday), we have the legal right for such decisions as made in the sections above, because the technologies are included in the basic properties of our Ontologic System, the integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and the Ontologic System Components (OSC), and hence also all related products and services.
Eventually, it is only just another legal exploitation of our legal monopoly and an implication of the decision made in the issue #183 of the 2nd of June 2019.

We also would like to mention the following legal case, because it has a similarity with the case of C.S..
For the judges a video-blogger had committed an "attack on the moral integrity of the [victim]" by replacing the white cream of cookies with toothpaste. The sentence: The video-blogger must pay the man 20,000 Euro damages and is not allowed to upload anything on a video platform for five years. 15 months imprisonment come along.
Such a sentence will not be the case here. Expect

This means that the related damage compensations have to be payed 30 years in retro in general and at least since we publicated the works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope in particular, and not since the due dates

Revision of AoA and ToS
Needless to say, with the revisions of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) many more changes are being considered.
We are considering to not license the reproduction of parts of our iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S. anymore.
This decision was suggested in the #183 of the 2nd of June 2019 already.

Infrastructure
We would like to recall once again that there are only the

with the related overlaps and interfaces of duties, tasks, and services managed, provided, and controlled in accordance with the regulations given in the issues #183 of the 2nd of June 2019 and #184 of the 3rd of June 2019 (yesterday).

Social credit system
It is not allowed to use our OS and our Os for the construction or operation of social credit systems utilized for any kind of oppression, repression, or surpression. In fact, a social credit system has nothing in common with surveillance.
If such a social credt system is allowed at all, then it must give a society more freedom of choice and codetermination, specifically in the course of the social decision making.

12:44 UTC+2
Ontologic Web Further steps

While thinking about the regulation of so-called social credit systems by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), C.S. created a completely new variant.

It is not allowed to use our OS and our Os for the construction or operation of social credit systems utilized for any kind of oppression, repression, or surpression.
If such a social credt system is allowed at all, then it must give a society more freedom of choice and codetermination, specifically in the course of the social decision making.
In fact, a social credit system has nothing in common with surveillance.

Why give minus points but not plus points for social engagements and achievements instead?
The problem is that in the U.S.A. they only know capitalism, in the P.R.C. they only know socialism or leninism, and in other areas of the world they only know we do not know. Accordingly, data is protected, or better said, not protected at all, collected, and used, or better said, misused. But what is missing is something totally new that shows respect to the users.
We integrated a whole social credit system with a digital currency, which means the plus points are digital coins, and got as overall result a social reward system. Very, very nice.

Furthermore, if users opt to exchange a specific personal data or Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for a benefit, then there is no reason for not offering it at all. Just make the users competent and then let them decide.

05.June.2019

04:51 and 11:37 UTC+2
Investigation::Multimedia

*** Work in progress - better explanation, order, wording ***

First observation: In a project financed by

a multimodal multimedia system was developed at the always suspicious and multiple times convicted Deutsche Forschungszentrum für künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI).
In a related project said multimodal multimedia system was developed further by stealing our integrations of

The latter is important, because at that time the corruption, espionage, and complot scandal in the B.R.D. of the government, the industrie, and the research institutes, including universities and joint research companies blow up.

Second obesrvation: Some weeks ago, the manufacturer Bayerische Motorenwerke infringed our copyright once again, because it wants to blackmail us with the government and other companies to give free our unforeseeable and unexpected, personal, original and unique, and already iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, as well as all related original and unique, and in part also already iconic projects based on them and extending them.
That manufacturer took

• merely show a person driving a car, wearing a simply OHMD, looking in one direction, and pointing on a virtual window of an AR software application overlaid on his view through the OHMD, and
• were shown in the Original vs. Inspiration of the 13th of April 2015,

for the next generation of its In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) system. We made a related note on the 26th of February 2019.
The latter is important, because our research and investigation of exactly this matter included in both prior art, including the material publicated in relation to said

has proven that the prior art does not include gaze tracking and gesture tracking in a 3D environment or space, and therefore already belongs to our

• OntoBot (OB),
• OntoScope (OSc),
• OntoNet (ON),
• OntoWeb (OW), and
• OntoVerse (OV),

which

• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and
• Industry 4.0 and 5.0,

and

obviously, doubtlessly, and defintiely.

Extra funny is the following explanation, that we found in one document about said multimodal multimedia system of the DFKI: "Finally, due to traffic safety considerations, pointing gestures [on the Graphical User Interface (GUI)] are prohibitive if the system is used whilst driving."
In fact, that multimodal multimedia system lacks at least

• in 3D and
• while driving,

as well as our

We concluded that this restriction while driving does not matter, but much more important is the fact that it shows without any doubts the completely opposite mind sets and ways of thinking of the developers of the relevant prior art and therefore we have a clear cut, because none of them thought about an integration of their multimodal multimedia system and their AR system, and even about an integration of more multimedia systems of other entities in total contrast to C.S. with the Ontologic System and the Ontoscope.
This composition and this integration of said prior art was done by C.S. and not by DFKI, BMW, or another entity, and it is also significantly enough and sufficient to be covered by the copyright of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and as part of the overall Ontologic System (OS).
Also note, that we have not discussed in detail in this context the composition and the integration of grid computing, cloud computing, edge computing, and all the other basic properties of our OS.

Third observation: In a report about jobs in the fields of

whereby the public was misled about the difference of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), one of the criminal managers of the Deutsche Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) was interviewed. The latter is important insofar, because

• prior art, that can be used without paying a royalty, and
• our works of art, that cannot be used for free,

into related packages (see also the issue SOPR #177 of the 10th of May 2019).
When we worked on a prescript for our License Model (LM) of our SOPR, we had already separated the two packages related to the multimodal multimedia systems. Now it seems to be another evidence for the espionage, because said report addressed this clear cut between both packages for misleading the public again.

We quote that report: "Jobs around artificial intelligence
[...]
"In principle there are three groups", explains [...] Wolfgang Wahlster of the Deutschen Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) in Saarbrücken. There are specialists for machine learning, specialists for autonomous systems and robotics and also specialist for speech technology.
[...]
[The] task of the [ML-]computer program is to formulate sound[, well-founded, profound, or valid] conjectures out of these data. The expert checks these conjectures and marks them as right or wrong. From now on, the computer program has verified data and can use them in its next conjectures.
[...]
As more precise the conjectures become over time, the more clear it is that the program - respectively the machine on which it is installed - learns autonomously, namely with the aid of data and experience. "AI-controlled processes are utilized for the quality assurance among other things" [...].
[...]
On the other hand, specialists for autonomous systems and robotics develop and construct cognitive systems and robots, which then collaborate [or cooperate] with humans immediately. They program, train and control the systems and robots - and are responsible for the maintenance. For instance, examples are autonomously driving cars and transport systems in plants.
[...]
Specialists for speech technology must condition [or make fit] the virtual assistants for their tasks at first, also enter voice data and train possible dialogs. A challenge is to train a virtual assistant in such a way that it captures and analyses gazes and gesture of its human vis-à-vis [or counterpart].
[Caption of an image that shows a handheld Ontoscope with a software application for visual object recognition on the basis of Computer Vision (CV):] In order that software is able to recognize fruits, it has to be teached by specialists for machine learning."

We do know what

but it becomes obvious that the report of a lying propaganda media of a political party in the B.R.D. was fabricated in this way by using copyrighted matter of our Ontologic System and Ontoscope to mislead the public about the true origin of our works of art once again.

Also interesting to note are the facts, that

For sure, this collaboration came after both companies have

Eventually, it is exactly the mess we are talking about and are not excepting anymore. See also the related section of the issue SOPR #180 of the 28th of May 2019.

That "long-term" partnership is in fact a part of that blitzscaling strategy, which was discussed in the last weeks by us and proves once again that both companies have collaborated and worked out the next strategy against C.S. and our corporation to steal our Intellectual Properties (IPs) and eventually our company by unfair business practices, including surrounding, encircling, and beleaguering, as well as blackmailing, and every other suited illegal technique, and begun to implement that serious criminal scheme with the result that

We killed that mess at its root in the last days by our

Companies like Alphabet, SoftBank, Amazon, and so on are only parasitic trolls exploiting our social and economical systems with cheap business ideas and tricks, which has quite a different quantity and quality than merely exploiting a monopoly.
If someone does not want to work together with us for whatever reasons, then we take notice of that. But there is absolutely no doubt that in such a case the other side cannot use our works and it is even more clear that the other side cannot keep any stolen item.
That is not the way it works.

Last but not least, also note the reference of the other endeavours conducted by very well known trolls and Ponzis to mislead the public once again, which is also a method applied by the lying press since around 2 decades to damage our business always for the benefit of the same companies that all have something in common.

14:52 UTC+2
More evidences Microsoft and Oracle mimicking C.S. and C.S. GmbH

*** Work in progress - some better order and wording ***
As not expected otherwise, the companies Microsoft and Oracle continued with

Either those serious criminal companies

they copied an essential part of our Ontologic Net (ON), which belongs to the infrastructure of our SOPR and is exclusively controlled and managed by our SOPR, by connecting their data centers for their cloud computing technologies, applications and services, that both companies have already stolen in the last years from us as well, with high-speed network connections and even are mimicking our SOPR by allowing other entities to log into services provided with that illegal clone of our ON (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update of the 20th of February 2019). This is not an alternative but remains the next partial illegal copy of our works of art.

We quote a related report: "Microsoft, Oracle team up on cloud services in jab at Amazon
Microsoft Corp and Oracle Corp on Wednesday said they reached an agreement to make their two cloud computing services work together with high-speed links between their data centers, targeting big business users and uniting against cloud computing leader Amazon.com's Amazon Web Services.
The two companies said the high-speed link between their data centers would start with facilities in the eastern United States and spread to other regions. They will also work together to let joint users log into to services from either company with a single user name and get tech support from either company.
The move comes as both Oracle and Microsoft are courting large businesses and government customers considering moving computing tasks currently handled in their own data centers to cloud providers.
[...]
Microsoft has previously inked a deal with German software maker SAP SE and Adobe Inc to make their services work better together.
[...] an analyst with research firm [the company], said the move was a clear "jab" at AWS, especially for Oracle. "It's no secret that Oracle views AWS as a major competitor in the database market," he said."

What we see is that both companies need our OS so much that they are willing to begin a war against the law and order of worldwide societies as well as us.

From our point of view, the only thing that both companies achieved with their carefully worked out move was worsening their legal situation by walking right into the trap laid out by us to prove that they are

• freedom of choice,
• innovation,
• fair competition pro bono publico==for the public good

alone and in collaboration as part of their unfair business practices against others, C.S. and our corporation, and eventually worldwide societies.

If someone does not want to work together with us for whatever reasons, then we take note of that. But there is absolutely no doubt in such a case that the other side cannot use our works and even more clear the other side cannot keep any stolen item.
That is not the way it works.

That move and its timing was totally stupid. It does not happen so often that one can see such a huge professional mistake.
Now the potential increased significantly that even Bill Gates and Larry Elisson end in jail for the rest of their lifes. Very, very stupid.

We have to warn cloud computing platform and service providers not to offer

as we also have to warn every entity not to use

17:30 and 17:50 UTC+2
Ontologic Web Further steps

We continued the work on a special platform, that is used by more and more persons.

In addition, we concluded that our advertisement platform will grow much faster than we might be able to handle in the beginning. So what? Very, very excellent.

17:30 UTC+2
Ontologic uniVerse Further steps

We continued the work on a special platform, that becomes more and more advanced.

13:12, 13:41, and 26:50 UTC+2
SOPR #186

The sad topics are:

Discount on royalties
The royalties are shares of 17.5% and 25% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our works of art, which

If

then we might give one or more discounts.
Note that any reproduction of our works of art is not allowed.

General remarks
If an entity does not want to work together with us for whatever reasons, then we take notice of that. But there is absolutely no doubt that in such a case said other entity cannot use our works and even more clear said other entity cannot keep any stolen item.
That is not the way it works.
There are sufficiently many alternatives for our works of art, such as the

But for sure, our original and unique creations, specifically our original and unique compositions and integrations of them, do not belong to these alternatives.
Eventually, it is up to the decision of a customer and user between the old alternatives or our new originals to see which one is more attractive, accepted, and successful.

06.June.2019

04:22 , 09:28, and 13:15 UTC+2
SOPR #187

*** Work in progress - maybe something is missing ***
Hardworking as ever we made progress in relation to the topics listed below:

Further steps
We decided to accelerate the evolution of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) and jump over one or two development stages or generations of them. Having said this, it is about time to say goodbye to

of other entities, because

• successor of the Internet, which is our ON,
• successor of the World Wide Web (WWW), which is our OW, and
• successor of reality, which is our OV and New Reality (NR),

and

License Model (LM)
Needless to say that the latest revision of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM), which is still going on, was never meant to punish entities, that are working together with us for a better world for all on planet Earth and abroad.
We ask from all members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) the shares of 17.5% and 25% of the overall revenue generated with our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) as royalties due to legal reasons (e.g. "Aspen Skiing" ruling) (see the issue #183 of the 2nd of June 2019).
But we also already mentioned a discount on our new royalties in the issue #186 of the 5th of June 2019 (yesterday) that we extended with more discount rates according to the first discount criteria:

If we get all criteria fulfilled, then we might

though there are some few cases where such measures would not be ideal.

Legal matter
We highly recommend nations not to collaborate with companies, that have already begun to monopolize our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and the infrastructure of our SOPR despite we

We decided that if a member of our SOPR attempts to monopolize a common part or element of our Ontologic System Components (OSC) with its ON, OW, and OV, as well as OAOS, and Ontoscope Components (OsC), then it becomes a candidate for a common part or element of the infrastructure of our SOPR.

Ok, let's go on. Yeah!!! :D

Ontologic Web Further steps
We discussed our integrated social reward system (see the Further steps of the 4th of June 2019) with a critic of social credit systems and came to the conclusion that the constructive features of our social reward system can also be perverted into destructive features, as is the case with social credit systems.
But after thinking on this problem, we got the first idea to integrate our already developed club system with our new social reward system, and then the second idea to generalize the approach, so that the origin of a point, credit, or coin is obfuscated and a hypothesis made about a user results merely in the fact that she or he is a user.
The question is now if and how this new social benefit system can be perverted and exploited in unwanted or even prohibited ways.

Style of Speed Further steps
The data, which was gathered with less efficient prior art in reality, already showed that one of our new rotors must be more efficient than we estimated even without all of our additional significant optimizations.
We also worked on its utilization as propeller or airscrew, and also as turbine rotor.

07.June.2019

08:10 and 11:23 UTC+2
SOPR #188

*** Work in progress ***
We are continuing the discussion about the following topics:

Political situation
The last days showed how strong and huge the

of other entities truly are but also how intense the

truly are.
As one result, we have to ascertain once again that powerful entities are not respecting our

by ignoring and infringing federal laws as well as our AoA and our ToS with the LM.

Democracy only works because the written laws and also the unwritten rules are valid and apply for everybody unmodified and in the same way. The same is the case for our AoA, which is simple, clear, unambiguous, and are valid and apply for every member of our SOPR unmodified and in the same way.
Eventually, resolving and handling the whole situation is a political decision and task, but not ours because our SOPR is not standing above the law.
In this relation, we would like or even have to note that the U.S.A. cannot afford to make a solo run anymore as is the case for Europe, the P.R.China, Russia, and Africa, as well as India and all the other countries. At least Europe, the P.R.China, and Russia are already on the move and as far as we can see they all want our SOPR and India and other countries in Asia and Africa most potentially join as well.

Be that as it may, we will not sell the works of art created by C.S., which implies that we will not give the ultimate management and control of

away, but will act against every unwanted or even prohibited activities that have opposite goals.

Self-evidently, we can only give support inbetween the limits of support that other entities give us.

Infrastructure
The world is not dividing over the mobile network of the 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G), because it is already based on our Ontologic System (OS) and united by our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also the infrastructure of our SOPR.

License Model
We concluded once again that the royalties in form of shares of 5% and 10% of the overall revenue generated with the performance of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) are too low for entities that are utilizing our works of art in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (see also the issues #182 of the 1st of June 2019 and #183 of the 2nd of June 2019).

We also concluded that the expected financial impact on others revenues and our corresponding royalties are not given at all by accelerating the evolution of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) and jumping over one or two development stages, as discussed in the issue #187 of the 6th of June 2019 (yesterday), because entities still need our OSC for their Ontologic System terminal devices and Ontologic System terminal points or simply OS devices and OS points including Ontoscopes, as well as their other technologies, goods, and services, and we will not decrease the related royalties very much if at all but potentially will increase them a little due to additional costs.
{correction of related issues if required}

08.June.2019

07:25 and 14:36 UTC+2
SOPR #189

*** Work in progress ***
The momentum is increasing and accordingly we have to discuss more about the following topics:

License Model (LM)
We have already given our blessing but not made our final decision to the revised royalties as shares of overall revenues generated with the performance of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) due to

Compliance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is mandatory, comprising for example the exclusive

as well as other provisions.

sub Ontologic Net (subON), sub Ontologic Web (subOW), and sub Ontologic uniVerse (subOV) are limitied on managing and controlling an own registry, broker, or similar facility for objects, applications, services, etc. to external entities (see the issue #172 of the 27th of March 2019). For sure, choosing this subON, subOW, and subOV option does not exonerate, dispense, or absolve from the guiding principles and the other general provisions of our SOPR such as the obligations of

The fulfilment of all criteria as discussed in the issue #187 of the 6th of June 2019 might give 1 or more discounts on the royalties of up to

• 12.5% in the case of OAOS, and
• 25% in the case of OAOS, and subON, subOW, or subOV.

Public and federal services and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors

Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Open for debate are the following points (once again):

Political situation
At a summit of the 20 biggest economies or industrial nations we heard the terms "strong consensus", "agreement", "new way", "activities", "fair share", and "precondition", which sound very familiar. Somehow we got the impression once again that politicians continue with taking our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) as blueprint for their attempts to

At another summit, payment systems and other financial technologies (fintechs), goods, and services, including our not explicitly named Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), were discussed. Obviously, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is not only warning about the disruptive nature of foul playing monopolists in this field but also fearing for its power, and correspondingly began to lobby and interfere a little.

Legal matter
For sure, we are still investigating the recent actions of large companies.
In the following we resolve this matter:

• operating systems,
• Multimodal User Interfaces (MUI),
• voice-based assistants,
• Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs),
• virtual globes,
• distributed ledgers, and
• digital currencies,

and also our fields of

• so-called superapplications or superapps,
• platforms,
• proprietary nets, and
• proprietary webs,

or better said, echos, shadows, or even clones of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) (see the issues #150 of the 20th of November 2018 and #177 of the 10th of May 2019).

Even more ridiculous is the fact, that all those permanent infringements were conducted on the basis of before already illegally spied out and copied parts or elements of our OS and our Os and many other infringements of our rights.
At this point, we can see another element of the overall strategy. Everytime we allow a little more respectively give a little more control away the new red line is crossed, which eventually means that our rights, competences, and authorities are not respected and regarded at all.
But ultimately, member companies of our SOPR are neither

Before we will renegotiate any allowance at all, the banned companies have to fulfill all of our legal demands or preconditions at first, including giving (back) all

to our SOPR.

09.June.2019

11:16 UTC+2
SOPR #190

*** Work in progress ***
Today we have to discuss a very, very, very hot hightech topic:

We will resolve the matter by only giving explanations about basic features and keeping confidential matter away.
We have designed our original and unique, icon works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope with anti-surveillance in mind and the possibility to operate it with different levels of security.
We have

• systems of loosely-coupled applications and services,
• tuple spaces, and
• Linda like systems,

• successor of the Internet, which is our Ontologic Net (ON),
• successor of the World Wide Web (WWW), which is our Ontologic Web (OW), and
• New Reality (NR), which is our Ontologic uniVerse (OV).

Due to this reason our works of art can do everything so to say in the air or ungrounded, distributed, obfuscated, encrypted, anonymous, and so. This means that governments can only get the data if our SOPR manages, configures, operates, and controls our OS and our Os, our OAOS, and also the OS devices and OS places in such a way that the processing and the data can be extracted, made visible, and so on.
If governments want to get access to processing and data respectively electronic evidence, then they have to guarantee and protect all of our rights and all of the regulations of our collecting societies.
As we said in issue #188 of the 7th of June 2019, "we can only give support inbetween the limits of support that other entities give us".

10.June.2019

08:35 UTC+2
SOPR #191

*** Work in progress - some better wording ***
The topics of this issue are the following ones:

License Model (LM)
We are thinking about reducing the royalties by

as of the 1st of January 2025 depending on how the endeavour works.
We did not make this step directly, because the

We also would like to note that the

Due dates
We learned in the last days that the attacks on the moral integrity and other rights of C.S. and the rights of our corporation, and their conduct by entities alone and in collaboration are punished much more as we thought before. This implies, that the related due date for this kind of infringements of our rights is around the 1st of January 2007.
The due date for the infringements of other rights, such as the copyright, is said to be 3 years retroactive, though it is also the date of the first publication or performance of a work of art at least in the U.S.A..
But we have already listed a bunch of other aspects to respect and consider.

11.June.2019
Comment of the Day
"Duff bluff"

12.June.2019

17:10 UTC+2
More evidences Dassault Systemes mimicking C.S. and C.S. GmbH

We noticed that the company Dassault Systemes thought to be very clever (not really) and continued with

In relation to a CAx software we got the following informations:
"In 2014, Dassault Systèmes launched [a first illegal 3D copy] Platform R2014x [...] and [a CAx software] on the Cloud, a cloud version of its software."
"[a CAx software] [a first illegal 3D copy]-on-the-Cloud brings High Power Design Tools to Small Design Teams".
"IBM and Dassault Systèmes launch [a CAx software] Version 5 Release 7 [in 2015]"
"In 2018, Dassault Systèmes launched [a first illegal 3D copy] Marketplaces to connect [a CAx software] Users, with manufacturers, standard parts creators and engineers."
"In 2019, [a first illegal 3D copy] Marketplaces launched an Add-in in [a CAx software], to connect directly manufacturers with designers."

From a press release publicated in February 2015 by a fraudulent company, which was bought by Dassault, we got the following information:
"[A fraudulent company] Launches [a second illegal copy] Requirements Verification Tool to Make Requirements Right the First Time
[A fraudulent company], the first software company to provide tools that validate real-time systems requirements, introduces [a second illegal copy], a modeling and simulation environment to edit, debug, and test requirements. With [a second illegal copy], system architects can now verify requirements before the design phase even begins, reducing specification errors, process iterations, and compliance costs for industries battling the rising costs of certification.
[...] [a second illegal copy] bridges design and requirement engineering tools by using simulation to test and check textual specifications, enabling engineers to detect incorrect or conflicting requirements. The tool features a high-level modeling language that formalizes natural language requirements and a simulation engine that generates and analyzes executable traces to test requirements.
[...]
[A fraudulent company] is a privately held software vendor that provides innovative simulation tools that, for the first time, make it possible to validate requirements early in the embedded system design process."

From a press release publicated in March 2015 we got mor information: "Dassault Systèmes Reinforces its Cyber Physical Systems Engineering Strategy for a Safer, Smarter and Connected World
Dassault Systèmes has acquired the startup [A fraudulent company] to leverage proven artificial intelligence technology as the backbone of model-based systems engineering and architecture for embedded systems.
[A fraudulent company], headquartered in Grenoble, France, enriches Dassault Systèmes' [a first illegal 3D copy] platform and industry solution experiences such as "Smart, Safe and Connected" that are used by the transportation and mobility, aerospace and defense, and high-tech industries in their development of complex autonomous systems such as those in smart cars, homes and cities. [A fraudulent company]'s software solution [a second illegal copy] enables system architects to add the "Play" concept at the requirement specification phase to formally ensure its consistency and completeness.
Within the systems engineering domain, many systems non-quality issues are due to incomplete, inconsistent requirements. [a second illegal copy] users can detect ambiguous, incorrect, missing or conflicting requirements at a very early phase of the process - before functional design starts - thus creating high-quality specifications needed for the validation and safety of embedded systems. By using [a second illegal copy], controlling and modeling uncertainty through a stochastic approach becomes key to delivering cyber physical systems that are ready for use.
"As a pioneer in systems specification simulation, we were looking for a leader with a comprehensive vision, and able to move to the next paradigm shift," said [...], CEO, [A fraudulent company]. "Today the whole [A fraudulent company] team, which I was pleased to lead the last five years, is excited to start a new adventure as part of Dassault Systèmes, to realize our ambitious common plan on cyber physical systems engineering."
"Simulation and modeling fusion is at the heart of our cognitive augmented design strategy, and [A fraudulent company] strengthens our foothold in software and embedded systems architecture modeling and simulation solutions," said [...], CEO, [a CAx software], Dassault Systèmes. "With strict legislation coming, there is a huge challenge with respect to requirements and regulations for cyber systems such as autonomous vehicle system performance and reliability. For this, ensuring the early validation of these requirements is critical to accelerate their go to market.""

From various other sources we got the following additonal informations:
"[A fraudulent company] provides software tools for the validation of real-time functional safety systems, from requirements engineering to automatic test-case generation."
"[A fraudulent company] provides Software simulation tools to edit, debug, and test requirements for real-time systems from functional specification."
"[A fraudulent company] introduces [a second illegal copy] at Embedded World 2015, a modeling and simulation environment to edit, debug, and test requirements."
"[A fraudulent company] is a software company that provides [a second illegal copy], a unique simulation and validation solution for requirements engineering of embedded systems."
"[A fraudulent company]: Making MCU Software Requirements Creation Easier. To reduce labor and error in requirements definition and verification [A fraudulent company] uses natural language modeling."
"In March [2019], the company [Dassault] acquired startup [A fraudulent company] to boost artificial intelligence technology for model-based systems engineering and architecture for embedded systems."

In relation to a scond company, which Dassault wants to buy as well, we got from various source the following informations:
"Cloud-based [a second company]'s software is used to help clinics manage back office operations and data, besides providing analytics tools [...]."

Last but not least we got a sad statement:
""Multidiscipline scientific innovation and industrial performance call for a platform approach connecting the dots between people, ideas and data," said [...], Vice Chairman and CEO of Dassault Systèmes."

Of course we got here mutliple significant and profound evidences, which obviously and doubtlessy provide the causal link with our Ontologic System, as already a quick look on its

proves without further explanations.
Therefore, we have here serious

That is not the way it works. The company Dassault Systemes and its involved business partners will loose any judicial litigation as clearly and explicitly as a lead balloon goes down.

Can it be that Dassault is also a member of a specific group?

Btw.: Verification is not validation.

07:08, 09:18, and UTC+2
SOPR #192

*** Work in progress ***
The discussion of today continues the discussion of former issues about the topic:

Registries of items
We are not happy with an allowance of the potential licensing option for managing and controlling an own registry, broker, or similar facility for objects, applications, services, etc. to external entities respectively subOn, subOW, or subOV as is the case with any subparts of the infrastructure of our SOPR.
Therefore, we are considering to allow an external entity to do only one but not both if at all. This is especially interesting for telecommunications companies but also for other companies of the ICT sector that want to perform or provide OAOS as a platform but also perform or provide OAOS for the infrastructures, which are the basis for platforms.

We come to such a situation everytime when the separation of a standard item and a meta-item (item of or for standard items) is difficult or seems to be impossible. We will take a closer look at the latter once again from the technological point of view but also from the legal point of view. The result will also be decisive for making the decision about the allowance of subON, subOW, and subOV for standard OAOS and meta OAOS as defined in the issue #189 of the 8th of June 2019.

We are thinking about allowing the management and control of an own registry, broker, or similar facility for objects, applications, services, etc. only

13.June.2019

07:52 and 17:38 UTC+2
SOPR #193

*** Work in progress - some words and links missing ***
The discussion about the following topic continues:

General considerations
We said very clearly that we are willing to allow other entities to reproduce, or better said, utilize and perform our works of art in parts to continue their tasks and businesses. We keep our commitment of licensing our works of art in parts.
Self-evidently, the guarantee of neutrality respectively grandfathering covers only business activities that

But selling, giving up control, or accepting competition with licensees on the basis of our own works of art was never our intention.
But we were never willing to tolerate other entities to misuse our allowance for copying our corporation and competing with us on the basis of our own Intellectual Properties (IPs), business strategies, etc. for our own IPs. And that for just only 5% of the revenue.

The matter comes down once again to the of monopoly.
We already said that it makes absolutely no sense that we give up our legal monopoly voluntarily only to support the growth and strength of already existing and highly questionable monopolies, like in the cases of large industry companies for example, that harm freedom of choice, invention, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, as can be easily seen with the issues related to our OS and our Os.
We already said that "[t]here are sufficient many alternatives for our works of art [...]." (see the issue #186 of the 5th of June 2019 and elsewhere). Needless to say, these alternatives do not comprise any essential part or element of our OS and our Os, specifically those parts or elements of our OS stolen since the end of the year 2006.

If we would take as royalty a share of 5% of the overall revenue generated with our works of art, then we would

Eventually, that is not a compromise and will not become the basis of a consensus and an agreement.

License Model (LM)
We decided to

Legal matter
One of the very basic principles of a constitutional state is that any forced private act is null and void by law. In this context, a

14.June.2019

10:11, 13:41, 17:07, 18:11 UTC+2
SOPR #194

*** Work in progress ***
Top topics today:

License Model (LM)
{has to be matched with the ruling of the case Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., which is an "outlier case that is "at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability," and is a "limited exception" to the rule that even a monopolist has no antitrust obligation to deal with a competitor", and our discounts}
There must be freedom, order, change, competition, and punishment, whereby all of our decision are made on the basis of the FRAND terms.
We developed more variants of our basic License Model (LM).
We are deciding for a new LM after resolving the case of the meta-technologies, meta-goods, and meta-services, which include the option to control and manage a subON, subOW, or subOV and provide it to external entities, which again is limited by the known regulations.
The different values are the result of halving 2.5 to 1.25%, 5 to 2.5%, and 12.5 to 6.25%.

The following 4 variants are the result of the latest selection phase:

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 3.75 to 10.00% for performing OAOS
  • 6.25 to 12.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 5.625 to 11.875% for performing OAOS
  • 8.125 to 14.375% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 10.00 to 16.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 3.75 to 10.00% for performing OAOS
  • 6.25 to 12.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.25 to 12.50% for performing OAOS
  • 8.75 to 15.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 8.75 to 15.00% for performing OAOS
  • 11.25 to 17.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 3.75 to 10.00% for performing OAOS
  • 8.75 to 15.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 5.625 to 11.875% for performing OAOS
  • 10.625 to 16.875% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 12.50 to 18.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 3.75 to 10.00% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 5.625 to 11.875% for performing OAOS
  • 11.25 to 17.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 15.00 to 21.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

Companies with a high revenue but a low profit (margin), like for example Amazon and Uber, can suggest a separation of their business units and services to match the three licensee groups for consideration by our SOPR.

Registries of items
In general, the option introduced with the issue #172 of the 27th of March 2019 does not make sense from our standpoint. Nevertheless, it was demanded, realizable in a legally acceptable way, and eventually allowed by us.

Microsoft wants to manage a registry for (cloud computing) services, which includes the (cloud computing) services of an external entity, which again is Oracle.
Oracle wants to do the same with the (cloud computing) services of Microsoft.
Indeed, at first sight it seems to be allowed by the option introduced with the issue #172 of the 27th of March 2019, though this bidirectional relation is a little odd.
{correction of related issues if required}
For sure, we asked us in March 2019 how other potential developments of such a liberal option would look like. For example, how will the result look like if more and more companies are added to the same registry for (Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing (GCEC)) services? In the end, we will get two ONs, two OWs, and two OVs,

that would

But we have no reason and cause to accept such situations at all, as also discussed once again in the issue #193 of the 13th of June 2019 (yesterday).
The question is now it subON, subOW, and subOV are a stupid idea after all.

Reinvestments
We expect that up to 95% of the royalties will be reinvested in the infrastructure and platforms of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as our SOPR.
As already said in past issues (see for example the issue ... of the ...), we will direct the reinvestments of our royalties back to their sources as much as possible and reasonable, for example by giving orders and commissions, fund and support our funds, and just buying shares.

16.June.2019

10:27, 11:56, and 17:02 UTC+2
SOPR #195

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
We discussed more about these topics:

License Model (LM)
We developed more variants of our basic License Model (LM) in addition to the variants discussed in the issue #194 of the 14th of June 2019.
We are deciding for a new LM after balancing between the three licensee groups and making thorough considerations about them.
The differentiation of standard Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and meta Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) makes no sense in the near future anymore and was already dropped again but also included in the royalties somehow.
The damage compensations and the digital tax are already included in the royalties.

The following 8 variants are the result of the latest selection phase:

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 4.00 to 10.25% for performing OAOS
  • 6.50 to 12.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.125 to 12.375% for performing OAOS
  • 8.675 to 14.825% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 8.25 to 14.50% for performing OAOS
  • 10.75 to 17.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 4.00 to 10.25% for performing OAOS
  • 6.50 to 12.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.00 to 12.25% for performing OAOS
  • 8.50 to 14.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 8.00% to 14.25% for performing OAOS
  • 10.50% to 16.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 4.00 to 10.25% for performing OAOS
  • 6.50 to 12.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 5.75 to 12.00% for performing OAOS
  • 8.25 to 14.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 10.00 to 16.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 7.125 to 13.375% for performing OAOS
  • 9.675 to 15.825% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 9.25 to 15.50% for performing OAOS
  • 11.75 to 18.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 7.00 to 13.25% for performing OAOS
  • 9.50 to 15.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 9.00 to 15.25% for performing OAOS
  • 11.50 to 17.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.75 to 13.00% for performing OAOS
  • 9.25 to 15.50% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 8.50 to 14.75% for performing OAOS
  • 11.00 to 17.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.50 to 12.75% for performing OAOS
  • 9.00 to 15.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 8.00 to 14.25% for performing OAOS
  • 10.50 to 16.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.25 to 12.50% for performing OAOS
  • 8.75 to 15.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 10.00 to 16.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

The fairer variant would be the variant with 2.50% within licensee groups and 1.75% between licensee groups, but we decided for the variant with 2.50% within licensee groups and 1.25% between licensee groups.

We expect that most licensees are eligble for the grant of a discount of up to 6.25, 7.50, or 8.75 respectively up to 12.5%, 15%, and 25% percentage points on the maximal royalties as listed above for matching with legal reasons (e.g. "Aspen Skiing" ruling) (see the issues #182 of the 1st of June 2019 and #183 of the 2nd of June 2019).

Companies of the non-ICT sectors with ICT, like vehicle manufacturers becoming more companies of the ICT sector but also companies of the ICT sector becoming more companies of the non-ICT sectors, must acknowledge the fact that they are not non-ICT anymore but more and more ICT and vice versa.
Companies of the non-ICT sectors with ICT can suggest a separation of their business units and services to match the three licensee groups for consideration by our SOPR.
We recommend public and federal institutes and authorities, and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to establish joint ventures with us, if not already required by the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), to enjoy significant reductions in royalties.

Registries of items
The companies "Microsoft and Oracle team[ed] up on cloud services [and] reached an agreement to make their two cloud computing services work together with high-speed links between their data centers [..., which] would start with facilities in the eastern United States and spread to other regions. They will also work together to let joint users log into to services from either company with a single user name and get tech support from either company".
In the issue #194 of the 14th of June 2019 we already said that "this bidirectional relation is a little odd" in relation to subOn, subOW, and subOV, and indeed, with said agreement and common facilities these companies are neither external entities in respect to each other anymore nor a joint venture. But subOn, subOW, and subOV are limitied on managing and controlling an own registry, broker, or similar facility for objects, applications, services, etc. to external entities (see once again the issues #172 of the 27th of March 2019 and #192 of the 12th of June 2019).
The companies have to establish a joint venture or discard again their activities.

Our intention with this regulation was to allow only a single entity to manage and control an own registry, broker, or similar facility internally in its own data centers, so that in the case an entity becomes too large it will become a case for the antitrust authorities. In this respect, a joint venture also constitutes such a single entity and the example with an alliance or initiative respectively joint venture mentioned in the issue #194 of the 14th of June 2019 only works until the market regulator triggers actions against an illegal monopoly.
At this point we would like to recall once again that we have a legal monopoly on our works of art.

But even with such an exact and crystal clear formulation we see here a general problem once again, which we already discussed a little and would not have at all if we refuse to license our works of art, that is the exact wording or formulation of the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR, which is not possible eventually but requires permanent overwork. Therefore, we already included a general regulation, which eventually means that there is no fixed regulation.
Needless to say, in such an overall situation an agreement is also not possible, whereby though such an agreement would still be the result of illegal activities and hence would not provide a final legal certainty.
Because the governments also play foul, filing lawsuits worldwide seems to be the last alternative.

18.June.2019

13:27 and 14:26 UTC+2
SOPR #196

*** Proof-reading mode ***
The following topics need our discussion:

Masterplan
In past issues about matter related to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) we announced to give more informations about the so-called masterplan and also began to publicate some few informations to

As not expected otherwise and documented already, said test failed, because the given informations only became the matter of foul plays once again (see the issues #182 of the 1st of June 2019 and #183 of the 2nd of June 2019).
In addition, we had to understand eventually that large entities still think wrongly that they would be allowed to

on the basis of our

which for sure is not legal.
Consequently, we also had to understand that no environment or climate exists at all, which allows us to discuss our (business) strategies, plans, and secrets, specifically our decisions made about the future developments of the infrastructure and the platforms of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as our SOPR respectively said masterplan.
Needless to say, this makes the communication and management not easier in general.

Digital currencies

Last but not least, we would like to recall that in the case a transaction is executed for free we will estimate our royalties on the basis of the overall transaction volume and the cost of executing the related transactions.

19.June.2019
Comment of the Day
"Bone, done, and gone"
Giving teeth not required at all. :þ ©™

20.June.2019

08:35, 21:36, 22:24, and 23:13 UTC+2
SOPR #197

*** Work in progress - correction and anonymization in explanation ***

We have two very nice topics to discuss:

Social and societal
There is absolutely no doubt that other companies, foundations, and societies are excluded from the sharing of virtual sovereign territory, because this can only happen between real nations and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) respectively our virtual state, also known as OntoLand (OL) governed by our SOPR.

Some few have already recognized and understood our idea and related preparations, which were included in the foundations of our SOPR just right from its start.
We have the

• universal ledger (see also the issue SOPR #157 and the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of 23rd of December 2018),
• IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS), and
• Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),

• Communication and Collaboration (CoCo) system,
• social networking and media platform,
• societal platform without anonymity and monetizing of user data,
• marketplace for everything system, and
• societal marketplace platform with anonymity and without monetizing of personal data, as well as

• Superstructure,

and

Due to

• social networking and media, and societal technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods, and services, as made clear all the years, and also
• marketplace and societal marketplace technologies, goods, and services,

and

• operating the related platforms and systems, and
• providing the related services for us,

said technologies, goods, and services are orphaned and vacant, actually so to say.

Therefore, we are even considering the submission of the proposal to

to all societies represented by their states under the conditions that the SFC

• control and management of the infrastructure and platforms of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as SOPR, and
• joint ventures established by federal institutes and authorities, and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as one group of joint partners and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation as other group of joint partners.

Digital currencies
Any other unregulated digital currency than the digital currencies controlled and managed by our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) will not work or even become a systemically important currency, if they will work at all, because the

are not compatible with the requirements and demands of central banks and other authorities, and monetary funds in total contrast to the digital currencies of our OntoBank.
For example, if a user pays with such a digital currency on a service platform, then the provider of said service platform does know what said user is doing and paying for.
In fact, at this point our

come into play as well.

For resolving the foundational problems of those unregulated digital currencies would have to become even more the related parts of the infrastructure and platforms of our ON, OW, and OV, as well as SOPR. But then they would not comply with the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR all the more.

As we said above, we designed and prepared our SOPR for exactly this development just right from the start as well in a way, which is complementary to and impossible to copy by Facebook, and Facebook acted as predicted.

But central banks and other authorities, like for example the U.S.American Federal Reserve System, aka. Fed, the British Bank of England, and also the European Central Bank (ECB), and monetary funds, like for example the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have not a jester's license or room for cheap political tactics either due to our OFinS. Required are

to

As we said above, we designed and prepared our SOPR for exactly this development just right from the start as well in a way, which is

In this relation we are observing that the central banks and other authorities, and the monetary funds are beginning to act as predicted.

By the way, this shows one more time why it is so much more constructive that authorities talk with us and nobody else, as we already said several times in the past. :)

Nevertheless, we

21.June.2019
SOPR #198
Our giant success continues, which we proudly celebrate with the following topics:

Social and societal
Our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), as well as our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with their infrastructure and platforms have become the only conceptual, technical, and legal facility that can comply with the demands of the societies.
The latest proof was made with the demand of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the worldwide regulation of digital currencies, specifically those, which are based on a blockchain-based ledger or other distributed ledgers, like for example well known cryptocurrencies, which again are also based on our OS.

In fact, required are the elements and their integrations of our SOPR infrastructure, including for example our

but also

As in the case with cloud computing technologies, goods and services, members of our SOPR can continue with building up their digital currency technologies, goods, and services quasi as experimental prototypes or developmental works. But the control and management or the whole prototypes or works have to be removed or handed over to our SOPR for their self-costs

We expect in most cases that the operation can be continued by the same SOPR members by following our regulations and requirements.

Digital currencies
We suggest that all central banks launch their one or more own digital currencies (e.g. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) or Central Bank CryptoCurrency (CBCC)), that our OntoBank will add to its basket of currencies.

Please keep in mind that the digital currencies in our OS respectively OFinS are hooked into our universal ledger.
Then the joint ventures established by central banks and other authorities, and monetary funds as one group of joint partners and our OntoBank and other units of our OFinS as other group of joint partners can take the basket to handle the included digital currencies and execute their financial (trans)actions in such a way that we have some kind of a global currency for the end users that can comply with the demands of the societies (see also the issue #197 of the 20th of June 2019 (yesterday)):

are possible by our OFinS and other elements of our SOPR infrastructure and platforms of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV).

Style of Speed Further steps
"Even assuming huge advances in battery technology, with batteries that are 30 times more efficient and "energy-dense" than they are today, it would only be possible to fly an A320 airliner for a fifth of its range with just half of its payload, says Airbus's chief technology officer Grazia Vittadini."
Either we have read totally incorrect publications or something else is not correct with this statement, because we have other numbers laying on our desk and being stored on our harddisk.

Be that as it may, because it makes sense from an economic point of view and we are the true driving force respectively flying force anyway (see also the Ontonics Further steps of the 4th of May 2017), we modified two airplanes with one of our superior propulsion systems, which our business unit Ontonics can now utilize in related market sectors.
Even better, these

which we expect to become the new standards instantly after their presentations and publications, open even more opportunities to grow much more in much more

Obviously, engineering companies but also federal authorities have much more reasons to collaborate with us, which is always the best choice.

23.June.2019

11:33 UTC+2
SOPR #199

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
We continued with making considerations about the topics listed below:

Further steps
Honestly, we have no clue how to bring companies back into the game of social networking and e-commerce as well as other fields after they lost our confidence and trust. Maybe affected

for getting back to the negotiation table and pursuing the opportunity of the century. :)

Social and societal
In respect with the considerations given in the section before, we have to make clear that there is also a clear white, yellow, or red line between social and societal duties, tasks, and services, specifically between private duties, tasks, and services and public and federal duties, tasks, and services, which are incompatible to an extent.
For sure, companies can operate their technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), sell their goods, and provide their services in the fields of social networking and e-commerce, but have to

As is the case with the wake word regulation, there is also a white, yellow, or red line with societal and e-commerce technologies, goods, and services. For example, companies thought to be clever and added a function for the automatic completion of forms to their variants of our related Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS). But for its working the companies need to collect the data of a user and store the data in addition to the collected data of an actual utilization. Both taken alone is already much too much for our societal and e-commerce technologies, goods, and services, and therefore the automatic form completion function is only allowed for private websites but not for websites for public and federal duties, tasks, and services for example. :)

Superstructure
We would like to give the explanation, that due to our

• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed Systems (FTRTDSs),
• blackboard systems, including
  • systems of loosely-coupled applications and services,
  • tuple spaces, and
  • Linda like systems,
• Peer-to-Peer Computing Systems (P2PCSs),
• Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing Systems (GCECSs), and
• multi-cloud computing systems, dynamic federation systems, and service meshing systems,

• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and
• Industry 4.0 and 5.0,

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),

and

• Superstructure,

our

are also integrated in whole or in part by our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

The Air Traffic Management (ATM) of our Superstructure is part of the infrastructure of our SOPR and therefore controlled by our SOPR exclusively (see also the issue Superstructure #XY of the ...). Consequently, overlaps and interfaces are controlled and managed by joint ventures established by federal ATMs and state-owned companies and our SOPR exclusively.

Projects

Yesterday, we disclosed that we already have developed a proposal for the project

and learned that the U.S.American administration has a similar project proposal as well.
Maybe we could come together but we expect an unambigious commitment of the various parties concerned in this region.

In relation to the projects

we can give the guarantee that a CO2-neutral economic activity will be reached until the year 2050, though we expect to reach the goal in the year 2035.
Having said this, the kids can go back to school on Fridays and learn more mathematics, social competence, and so on.

24.June.2019
Ontonics Further steps
After we got the information from our business unit Style of Speed how our other airliners of the first generation will look like (see the Style of Speed Further steps of the 21st of June 2019), we began to calculate the ticket prices, travel times, and other data. What we can already say is that the

Compare these estimations with the informations given in the Ontonics Further steps of the 4th of May 2017 in relation to our other airliners of the third generation.
Please keep in mind that the lower prices for travelling are coupled to our complete travel programs, which include additional charged services at the destinations.

Style of Speed Further steps
We have started a new development program for aiplanes that we called Electric SuperSonic Transport (ESST), which

Besides the highly efficient fuselage, wings, propulsion system, and also sonic boom suppressor already on stock our research showed that we have to make some few improvements of the airframe, due to the incredible performance of our brandnew Revolutionary Electric Accelerator (REA), which

The latter one of a kind feature of our REA allows us to virtually eliminate the acceleration phase of conventional airliners, which should result in a travel time reduction of up to 30 minutes.
This also raises the question if seats are still needed for short distance travel, because in the moment passengers have found a comfortable sitting position they are already at their destination and have to stand up again. :)

25.June.2019

16:40 UTC+2
SOPR #200

*** Proof-reading mode ***
topics:

License Model (LM)

We reviewed our new License Model (LM) once again in relation to the

• first mover advantage,
• momentum,
• patents,
• order, and
• more effects,

• C.S. and
• our corporation,

Eventually,

Furthermore, the following points were pointed out:

• an entity can keep and use its user data exclusively when billing for us as far as the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR has no special regulations otherwise in relation to data sharing and
• the related business processes are streamlined for all parties concerned.

Turnover taxes
"Historically, turnover taxes have been rejected as poor tax policy because they are inefficient, create barriers to economic growth, and generally considered to be unfair tax policy. In the 1960s, Europe rejected taxing turnover in favor of VATs, favoring efficiency over multiple layers of taxation.[...] The [European Commission (]EC[)] proposal would turn back the clock significantly on that effort and damage the ability for digital companies to grow."
We also discussed these general problems in relation to our royalty, fee, commission, or share of the overall revenue and

to make our LM fairer.

Nevertheless, we are missing a mechanism against double taxation, as applied with the value added tax for example.

Diverses
We are thinking about the possibility to offer members of our social networking platform, which is operated by our SOPR, flights and travel programs for reduced prices.
Yeah!!!

26.June.2019

17:55 and 24:16 UTC+2
SOPR #201

*** Work in progress ***
We continue the discussion about our

License Model (LM)
Since the end of the year 2006 the Ontologic System and the Ontoscope as well as many other works of art created by C.S. and all their many variants produced and performed by others have become never seen before worldwide smash hits. Accordingly, 15 over 35 and 180 to much more U.S. Dollar × 2 for each reproduction and considerable royalties for each allowance for performance could come out at the courts as damage compensation.

But before the courts will have the last word or we fleece or cheat someone we calculate once again, specifically to see how the reduction of the royalties by 1.25% will look like (see also the issue #200 of the 25th of June 2019).

The following variant is the result of this reduction:

• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies, and non-Information and Communication Technology (non-ICT) sectors
  • 3.75 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 6.25 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 5.00 to 12.50% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 15.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 6.25 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 8.75 to 16.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

As another big if not giant gesture, we are also thinking about the introduction of one or two more licensee groups either

to support traditional or non-industrial sectors.
The following variant is the result of the LM with two more licensee groups respectively five licensee groups:

• Non-industrial sectors
  • 2.50 to 8.75% for performing OAOS
  • not required
• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies without Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 3.75 to 10.00% for performing OAOS
  • not required
• Public and federal institutes, state-owned companies with ICT, and industrial non-ICT sectors
  • 5.00 to 11.25% for performing OAOS
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Industrial non-ICT (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT
  • 6.25 to 12.50% for performing OAOS
  • 8.75 to 15.00% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
  • 7.50 to 13.75% for performing OAOS
  • 10.00 to 16.25% for performing OAOS and subON, subOW, or subOV

These suggested LMs have advantages and disadvantages in comparison to the old LM.
But decisive is the due date with increasing royalties, which could be either the

• status of limitation and also
• provision to include triple damages and illegal profit,

as also discussed in the issues #128 of the 14th of July 2018, #147 of the 4th of November 2018, and #174 of the 5th of April 2019.

30.June.2019

14:03 and 20:47 UTC+2
SOPR #202

We would like to share our latest considerations about the following topics:

License Model (LM)

We concluded once again that our royalties must be either a

The latter option is more Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND), though we have the impression that larger companies prefer the first option.

Due dates
For the moment, the old due dates

remain but we leave it free to choose the alternative due date

• status of limitation and also
• provision to include triple damages and illegal profit,

The due dates were chosen by taking into consideration all legal matter, corresponding damage compensations, and various License Models, though some legal matter might be more important than we have seen and considered so far.