Legal matter [Proposal for a Data Governance Act]
In the Ontonics Further steps of the 1st of December 2020 we quoted and commented relevant sections and articles of the Proposal for a Data Governance Act (PfDGA) of the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU).
In the following we give our conclusion and discuss potential solutions to cure potential deficits.

"On the macro level data governance refers to the governing of cross-border data flows by countries, and hence is more precisely called international data governance. This new field consists of "norms, principles and rules governing various types of data.""

The PfDGA has its merrits

But the claim that "only action at Union level can ensure that a European model of data sharing, with trusted data intermediaries for [Business to Business (]B2B[)] data sharing and for personal data spaces, takes off, given the cross-border nature of data sharing and the importance of such data sharing" is not correct.
These goals can be achieved with other measures as well, as it is shown with the common practice and the activity of our SOPR, which were taken as blueprint for the PfDGA. There is even no reasonable argument that requires a Data Governance Act to get a trustworthy environment and a data economy, as proven with common sense and common practice in the businesses, as well as our original and unique SOPR.

In the end, we would like to note that nobody needs a trustee to share or sell for example a natural resource, a car, or a house. The same holds for data.
Eventually, no trusted data intermediary, data trustee, data fiduciary, and data notary is required for data sharing and exchange at all or at least in the private and commercial scope.
For example, a trusted intermediary is not always required respectively is required only in special situations like in real life (e.g. trustee, fiduciary, and notary). In other cases the issue is solved with individual contracts, for example in a case of a mandatory joint venture between

To introduce a legal framework for the latter does not require a trusted intermediary.
Eventually, the PfDGA would be a legal framework and a robust control mechanism, which formalizes what the SOPR already said in the past about its core principles and ways of

In fact, this conflict of interest is not new in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector at all and handled by individual contracts between companies, for example between streaming platforms and Communication Service Providers (CSPs). The latter service provider is not allowed by contract to use the data of the first service provider for own business interests.
The EC wants to make common practice a law, but in a way that does not solve the initial problems and does not achieve the goals at all.

For sure, we also thought about all these issues and then discussed them, which is what the representatives of the EC simply copied for their proposal.

The problem of data dominance by U.S.American ICT companies will not be solved, because they generate (meta)data with their services, utilize others data for internal business processe in lawful ways, and also hold their (meta)data, the data dominance is just a consequence of better services, but not a problem of trust or conflict of interest, and also we do not accept that this problem should be solved mainly and ultimately only at our expense in the EU.

In general, the realization of the PfDGA is complex and therefore time and cost expensive. In the end, this would lead to a second structure concerning the data governance, which is separated from the first structure already existing, as intended by the PfDGA, but also has to be managed and operated in addition to the first structure. This is a huge organizational burden or even a bureaucratic beast, which might eat up all the economical benefits and potentially also all the other social benefits.
We are not sure, if this results in the expected overall benefit for the economy in particular and the society in general of the EU.

"According to German law, ownership is a right of domination over an asset position. For private law, § 903 of the German Civil Code==Bürgerliche GesetzBuch (BGB) defines property as the domination of a person over an object. According to this, the owner can handle the item as he wishes and exclude others from any influence, as long as the law or the rights of third parties do not conflict with this.
The concept of property is more broadly defined in the Basic Law==GrundGesetz (GG). Art[icle] 14 GG protects the property and the right of inheritance as a basic right. On the one hand, the norm represents a right of defence of the citizen against the state, on the other hand it obliges the legislator to create, develop, and protect property rights. In this context, property is defined as all asset positions that the legal system assigns to a person.
[...]
Article 14 GG [(GrundGesetz==Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany[)] reads as follows since the Basic Law came into force on the 23rd of May 1949:
(1) The ownership and the right of inheritance are guaranteed. Content and limits are determined by the law.
(2) Property obligates. Its use shall at the same time serve the common good.
(3) Expropriation is only permitted for the common good. It may only be made by law or on the basis of a law, which regulates the nature and extent of compensation. The compensation is to be determined under fair consideration of the interests of the general public and the parties involved. In case of dispute, the amount of the compensation is subject to legal action before the ordinary courts.

Article 14 [of the Basic Law] guarantees the existence and freedom of property and inheritance law. The basic right protects thereby a basis of the self-responsible organization of life and the free market economy.
[...]
According to the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court, the material scope of protection of the property guarantee includes every asset right that the legal system assigns to individuals for exclusive use in their own interest. The scope of protection of the property guarantee does not only result from the constitution, but is defined by the legislator. Art[icle] 14 [of the Basic Law] is called for this reason as norm coined/shaped basic right. 20][21] The norm coinage saves the danger that the legislator arranges the property order as sparsely as possible, so that art[icle] 14 [of the Basic Law] opposes sovereign interferences as rarely as possible. This danger of abuse is prevented by the establishment guarantee of art[icle] 14 [of the Basic Law]. This guarantees an inviolable core area of the property, which the legislator must provide[.] [22] This includes the private usefulness of the property and the free power of disposal of the owner over his property."

Data is property and a trustee is not required to share and sell a property due to the rule of law and the basic right of property. A state is just not allowed to dictate how a holder of property and a user of said property find consent as long as such an action is considered as fair according to common sense. By demanding that such an (trans)action can only be done through a trustee a state is exceeding its competence and infringing property right without proper legislation.
The original and unqiue works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S. are protected by the copyright as is the case with the material concerning our SOPR. The other original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are protected by the moral right, if they are not protected by copyright.
The PfDGA is restricting the property rights, copyrights, and moral rights of holders of AWs, further IPs, and digital and virtual assets in an unacceptable way. Specifically, the Articles 11 and 13 violate one of the very basic requirements of the rule of law, which is the right of holding and using property unreservedly, and therefore constitute an incomprehensible contradiction to the very foundations of the European Union, that is the rule of law.

Howsoever, the intention of the act is reasonable and useful at the edge and the interface with our OntoLand, where the various interests meet, merge, overlap, and even interlock.

The Data Governance Act would not unfold its full effect in the

Once again, in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand our SOPR is the only trustee and (data (sharing)) intermediary, but also holder of signals and data, and we will not accept any restriction to be both. Therefore, we will not give other (data (sharing)) intermediaries the allowance to perform and reproduce our OS and our Os in whole or in part, but demand members and licensees of our SOPR to select our SOPR as their only trustee and intermediary as part of the regulations of our SOPR respectively the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR.
We are even not sure at the moment if we have to accept such a Data Governance Act and should accept it, because we might not need to accept it or might weaken our legal position by accepting it.

Furthermore, we already mentioned that the SOPR is both, the

Therefore, the PfDGA would

• Marketplace for Everything (MfE),
• Trust Management System™ (TSM) for Trust Service Provider™ (TSP) and Trust as a Service™ (TaaS or TraaS) subsystems, platforms, applications, and services, and
• joint ventures between federal and public entities and our SOPR,

which all are exclusive due to the societal compromise and the significantly reduced royalties, and

But even more importantly is the point that due to the reasons that we

in the

as part of the

• open our OS with its Ontoscope (Os), OntoVerse (OV), Ontologic Economic System (OSE), and so on, and
• allow and license the performance and reproduction of our Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), etc., etc., etc..

The eventual implications are that our SOPR is the only trusted data intermediary, data trustee, data fiduciary, and data notary in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.

This act

The cardinal errors are that

• legal scope of our digital rights, digital interest, digital property, or digital estate,
• legal scope of our Ontologic System (OS),
• domain of our New Reality (NR) respectively
• sovereign space of our OntoVerse (OV), also known as OntoLand (OL),

belong to us as well as part of the licensing contract between

Eventually, this means that

• legal scope of our digital rights, digital interest, digital property, or digital estate,
• legal scope of our Ontologic System (OS),
• domain of our New Reality (NR) respectively
• sovereign space of our OntoVerse (OV), also known as OntoLand (OL).

We do not see a conflict of interest in relation to the Proposal for a Data Governance Act (PfDGA) anymore, after the SOPR is split up into the three separate legal entities

• is the exclusive joint venture between public sector bodies and the SOPR for providing the trusted data services, or
• provides the trusted services for the exclusive joint ventures between public sector bodies and the SOPR exclusively, if the SOPR Trustee does not do this,

because the

• SOPR Collect, which manages the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) exclusively,
• SOPR Trustee, which provides the trusted services for members and licensees of our SOPR, including the exclusive joint ventures between public sector bodies and the SOPR, exclusively, and
• SOPR Public Trustee, which
  • is the exclusive joint venture between public sector bodies and the SOPR for providing the trusted data services, or
  • provides the trusted services for the exclusive joint ventures between public sector bodies and the SOPR exclusively, if the SOPR Trustee does not do this,

These SOPR data trustees are mandatory for members and licensees of our SOPR, including joint ventures between federal and public entities and our SOPR representing C.S. and our corporation. There is no public procurement rule and no tendering procedure in the case of such a joint venture with our SOPR, which is reasonable and legal, because

In relation to public sector bodies, there are only exclusive joint ventures between federal and public entities and our SOPR as the only (data (sharing)) trustee or trusted intermediary.

Independent of this, the exclusive Marketplace for Everything (MfE) and the unrestricted access to raw signals and data are mandatory.

What our SOPR can do is to realize the structural separation by establishing in every member state of the EU its different types of trustee or data (sharing) intermediary for

But we already said that in every country a branch of our SOPR will be established.

The issue with the metadata has to be resolved in the PfDGA. Specifically, using metadata for other activities than the development of data sharing services should be allowed in the form of anonymized mass data like it is common practice in the case of for example Communication Service Providers (CSPs).

The member states of the EU could do that, but not in the

and hence only on the basis of hardware and software up to mobile phones with Jave Virtual Machine and Web 2.0, grid 1.0, no Ontologic System (OS), no Ontoscope (Os), no Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), no 5G Next Generation (5G NG), no Traffic Management of the Next Generation (TM NG), no Industry 4.0 (e.g. no what is wrongly called cloud, edge, fog, and all the other things that we list in such a context), etc., etc., etc., which means clear cut and EUxit.

We have discussed this matter sufficiently long, deep, and broad enough, and ...
consequences when submitting the unrevised PfDGA or DGA to the European Parliament (EP) of the EU on the 9th of December 2020 or later:

If we agree to that infringement of our property right, copyright, and moral right at all, then the consequences could comprise the activation of the following measures in case of introducing the unrevised DGA to the EU:

Trust Management System (TSM)
For compliance with the Proposal for a Data Governance Act (PfDGA) our SOPR already

• Trust Management System (TSM), and
• Trust Service Provider (TSP) or digital trustee role and platform,
• Trust as a Service (TaaS or TraaS) capability model and operational model,

in a highly harmonious and elegant way, which no other entity is able to provide due to various social, societal, legal, technical, and economical reasons and benefits.

In addition, the SOPR has for all classes or spaces of digital and virtual property or asset a

• IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS),
• Trustee Management System (TSM),
• Electronic Commerce (EC) System (ECS) and Marketplace for Everything (MfE),
• Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),
• Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), Networked Embedded System (NES)
  • sensor and actuator nets
    • Closed-Circuit TeleVision (CCTV),
    • etc.,
  • actuator nets,
  • Industrial IoT (IIoT),
  • Industry 4.0 and 5.0,
  • Energy Management System (EMS)
    • Smart grid,
  • Smart city,
  • Smart home,
  • Healthcare 4.0 and 5.0
    • Telehealth,
    • Medicine 4.0 and 5.0,
      • Telemedicine,
      • Anesthesiology,
      • Dentistry,
      • Urology,
      • Veterinary medicine,
      • etc.,
    • Pharmacy,
    • etc.,
  • Logistics,
  • Traffic Management System (TMS),
  • Intelligent Transportation System (ITS),
    • Vehicular Communication System (VCS),
    • Smart mobility,
  • etc.,
• Social and Societal System (SSS),
• Electronic Governance (EGovce), and
• Electronic Government (EGov),
• etc..

IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS)
In the section IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) of the issue #307 of the 24th of November 2020 we already discussed the latest evolution of the IDAMS of the largest global alliance of 26 airlines, the Star Alliance.
We also found out that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is developing and promoting its mobile application called Travel Pass since some months, which is a product of the IATA Travel Information Manual Automatic (Timatic), which again is basically a centralized database containing documentation requirements for passengers travelling internationally via air, for example passport and visa requirements, or said in other words, for storing Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of flight passengers, including location data (start and destination of a flight), visa data, and even health data with the Travel Pass.

But after thinking about these activities a little longer, we also noted some more facts and aspects.
The IATA and the Star Alliance each copied a part of our overall IDAMS and related subsystems and platforms like our Identity or digital passport of the next generation with biometrics and the already integrated {correct names missing} personal Identity or digital passport, and Know Your Traveller

and by pure happenstance these parts are integrated in the public airports and other places of their operations.

In addition, the IDAMS of our SOPR is mandatory, if such a IDAMS of a first entity is coupled with such a IDAMS of a second entity like for example in the cases of

Digital rights

The data protection or privacy, and data security will change with the

which are integrated with each other.
But we remembered that the issue with the digital Identity or digital passport, and the related data storages is even more general.

Following the definitions of data governance we define a Personally Identifiable Information (PII) sharing service or personal data sharing service as ... a service that stores PIIs or personal data in a data storage, specifically a database, and provides them to third entities respectively personal data users.
Our opinion was and still is that such services are infringing laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements for data protection or privacy, and data security.

We will not accept such private databases and related services that share Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and intelligence with other entities. We even think that they are illegal under new data protection laws being effective since several years now.
Personal data users are not allowed by private entities, but only by public sector bodies and joint ventures between federal and public entities, and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.

An entity will no get the allowance by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) for such a platform, application, and service based on our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC) and Ontoscope Components (OsC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
Either they will work with our SOPR, which means on the basis of the infrastructure of our SOPR but not alongside, or not work at all.
Any solution has to be handed over to our SOPR anyway, even its Timatic in case it is updated on the basis of our OS, though we might make affected companies the main contractor or service provider of our SOPR for this part.

regulations of our SOPR,
In case of

or stop of the sharing of PII.
Existing PII databases, applications, and services have to be handed over to our SOPR in the next 2 years.
affected personal data service provider, e.g. Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computiing (GCEFC) service providers, data advertising brokers, data consultancies, and providers of data products, can

Examples are,

Legal matter [Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS)]
In relation to the fields of Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS), we also would like to point out once again that our SOPR has the contractual right to get

without charge of fee for sure due to our

Please keep also in mind that in this context our

• SpeechCloud,
• MapCloud,
• AutoCloud,
• BikeCloud,
• PlaneCloud,
• ShipCloud,
• AutoMapCloud,
• CarCloud,
• RobotCloud,
• DroneCloud,
• etc.,

of our Ontologic System (OS)

While the situation for Chinese companies outside (mainland) China is clear by the 51% ownership regulation, also known as Chinese win-win policy, joint ventures between the SOPR and other companies inside mainland China have this right of unrestricted access as well.

Any refusal to comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR will results in a removal of related Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) from access on several layers and in serveral areas and spaces of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) respectively Ontologic System (OS), or simply said an illegal autonomous vehicle, application, and service will not perform and function respectively work.
In our OS there is no workaround or circumvention. Unlawful activities, like those possible in the old Internet and old World Wide Web (WWW) respectively in the 5th and 6th rings and related ID spaces of the management structure of our ON, OW, and OV, are not working on the basis of our OS or in other rings and ID spaces, because we have created our OS in this way.

This is no joke.

Free and Open Source to Publicly Validated and Verified and Open Soruce
Please keep also in mind

Further steps [End of negotiation phase]
We have observed a certain progress, but not the required significant progress regarding collaboration, which has to happen until the negotiation phase concerning an out-of-court agreement and an opening of our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) for licensing their performance and reproduction ends on the 31st of December 2020, 24:00 UTC+1 or 12:00 p.m. UTC+1.

We are not willing to extent the negotiation phase concerning an out-of-court agreement and an opening of our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) for licensing their performance and reproduction even further, because this phase ended on the 31st of December 2013 and after suggesting the SOPR in September 2017 it ended once again on the 31st of December 2019.
Eventually, the only thing that matters is that we still do not see our money on our table and feel our money in our pockets.

We are already working since some weeks on ways how to proceed, specifically with entities, who have

07.December.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We have perfected a part of the anode side of one of our electric energy storage devices.
In another development step we also perfected the overall design of this device.
We also confirmed once again that we can construct the cathode side of this device in a way that results in the increased overall energy density.

In relation to our takeover strategy we added another company to the candidates.

09.December.2020

Clarification

Hey, Ontologic System
We quote a report about the copyright dispute related to the song of the Pippi Longstocking saga: "Pippi Longstocking Song: Success for Lindgren heirs in court
In the dispute over the copyright to the song "Hey, Pippi Longstocking", the Regional Court of Hamburg [in F.R.Germany] has announced the verdict. It proved the heirs of Astrid Lindgren right.
[...]
The heirs of the Swedish children's book author, who died in 2002, can have the sale of Pippi Longstocking films and CDs in Germany banned immediately. But they do not want that at all. They just want to participate in the profits. Since 1969, the Munich Film Art-Music Publishing and Production Company has been collecting the money. They had translated the song from Swedish and changed the text in the process. So, as the publishing house itself says, they wrote a new song.
However, the judges in Hamburg see things differently. "The Pippi Longstocking in the song is exactly the Pippi Longstocking that you know from Astrid Lindgren's stories," the Hamburg judgement said. The heirs now want to hold quick talks about how they will participate in the profits from the song - and this also includes past years. Her lawyer said [to the public-law broadcaster]: "Pippi Longstocking is a cult figure in Germany - her song should continue to be heard.""

Exactly, the original and unique expression has been copied without creating an own original and unique expression and the translation of the original and unique work of art and its modification was not sufficient to avoid a causal link with the original. Therefore, we only have here an editing, which by the way is always the case with a

But even more important is the fact, that this also holds for our original and unique works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, created by C.S., and kept under the exclusive power of control and management of our SOPR. For example, all Ontologic System variants of the companies Apple, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Co., as well as all related devices are merely implementations of our OS and Os, but not new creations, designs, architectures, systems, and so on at their cores. The same holds for

10.December.2020

17:47 UTC+1
Corona warning buzzer illegal like Corona warning app

We quote a report publicated on the 20th of august 2020: "A "Corona warning buzzer" will be tested in Saxony[, F.R.Germany]. This is basically an app that works without a smartphone. The free state is funding the project [...].
The main aim is to reach senior citizens and children, who do not always have smartphones and are therefore not included in the tracking system of the [illegal] federal government's Corona warning app. [...]
The Saxon State Data Protection Commissioner will be involved throughout the development phase. He has already examined the project and raised no fundamental concerns. The idea behind the "Corona Warning Buzzer" [in keychain format] is the following: the device records its contacts indoors or outdoors without determining the location of the contacts or even personalizing the contacts. In terms of tracing, the system only remembers which cell phones or other "warning buzzers" were critically close for a certain time. Smartphones or other buzzers are detected via Bluetooth. Communication with the database of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) takes place via mobile radio. In the event of contact with an infected person, the user is alerted via LED and sound. The stored data is deleted after 14 days.

There are no legal loopholes, because it does not matter if a device

If it does not comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), then it is considered to be illegal.
But especially interesting are the details that a centralized database does exist at the RKI and the data protection commissioner has no issues with that system design.
One or nothing at all. All or nothing at all.

Corona-Warn-Buzzer auch illegal wie Corona-Warn-App
Wir zitieren einen Bericht: "In Sachsen wird ein "Corona-Warn-Buzzer" erprobt werden. Dabei handelt es sich im Prinzip um eine App, die ohne Smartphone funktioniert. Der Freistaat fördert das Projekt [...].
Erreicht werden sollen vor allem Senioren und Kinder, die nicht immer über ein Smartphone verfügen und deshalb nicht ins Nachverfolgungssystem der Corona-Warn-App der Bundesregierung eingebunden sind. [...]
Während der gesamten Entwicklungsphase wird der sächsische Landesdatenschutzbeauftragte eingebunden. Er hat das Projekt schon geprüft und keine grundsätzlichen Bedenken erhoben. Die Idee hinter dem "Corona-Warn-Buzzer" ist die folgende: das Gerät [im Schlüsselanhängerformat] zeichnet seine Kontakte in Gebäuden oder unter freiem Himmel auf, ohne den Ort der Kontakte festzustellen oder gar die Kontakte zu personalisieren. Das System merkt sich im Sinne des Tracings nur, welche Mobiltelefone oder andere "Warn-Buzzer" sich für eine bestimmte Zeit kritisch nahe waren. Smartphones oder andere Buzzer werden dabei via Bluetooth erkannt. Die Kommunikation zur Datenbank des Robert Koch-Instituts (RKI) erfolgt über Mobilfunk. Die Alarmierung des Nutzers geschieht im Falle eines Kontaktes mit einem Infizierten via LED und Ton. Die gespeicherten Daten werden nach 14 Tagen wieder gelöscht."

Es gibt keine rechtlichen Schlupflöcher.
Eins oder gar nichts. Ganz oder gar nichts. -->

11.December.2020

02:17 and 24:18 UTC+1
SOPR #309

*** Work in progress - day and link missing ***
Topics

Legal matter [Start and scope of agreement]
We though about the following matter many times and always wanted to formalize a related regulation of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
Since we offered to open our Ontologic System (OS) and license its performance and reproduction as part of a

the first time in the September 2017, new matter publicated by C.S. and our corporation is already covered by the scopes of the

• modify the original and unique expressions of the ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. to the point of unrecognizability,
• mimick C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR (see also the section Legal matter [Mimicking of SOPR] of the issue SOPR #306 of the 26th of October 2020), and
• damage the goals or even threaten the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR.

In other words, the performance and reproduction of everything

For a prominent example where these legal requirements, conditions, and limitations take effect see the section Superstructure [Satellite constellations] below.

Howsoever, we do not know why we should make entities, that have already

a present of

Legal matter [Subsidies]
Since more than one decade, at least U.S.American and European authorities are supporting activities of entities with taxpayer money in highly dubious ways and in many cases for

In the past, we have addressed the topic and the resulting problems several times, but we could not see an improvement in some severe cases.
Therefore, we have made the decision that the latest awards of taxpayer money in new subsidy programs were definitely the last time that we will tolerate that an U.S.American, European, or another country's authority gives entities taxpayer money for said unwanted activities listed above without taking countermeasures.

Superstructure [Satellite constellations]
After the company Amazon presented its plan for an integration of

the companies Microsoft and Space Exploration Technologies collaborated (once again) for the integration of

In this relation, we are wondering why they have not used the services of at least two already existing satellite communication constellations, which in the meantime have gone into insolvency.

We had to think about the matter for some days to get all point of views and their supporting arguments together and make an appropriate assessment of the situation, conclusion, and decison on how to proceed.
Indeed, one argument in favour of a legal integration of GCEFC technologies, goods, and services with satellite Internet constellations is given with the facts that the

Therefore, the performance and reproduction of the GIG and GIC, including satellite constellations of any kind, respectively the related parts of our ON, OW, and OV, and also our Superstructure and infrastructure of our SOPR, are open for licensing, but only as far as their performance and reproduction are needed by companies to keep up their businesses running, because everything else is not allowed to stop the continuation of

But neither Amazon nor the alliance of Microsoft and Space Exploration Technologies needs a

to keep up its businesses running. Is not it?

Another argument in favour of a legal integration of GCEFC technologies, goods, and services with satellite Internet constellations is given with the structural or legal separation of legal entities:

But in both cases we have a continuation of said unwanted activities listed above and therefore either a serious infringement of the

A further argument for said legal integration is the demand for a level playing field, so that in case one company does a business activity, then another company is allowed to do the same as well.
But this situation is not given in this specific case of the integration of GCEFC technologies, goods, and services with satellite Internet constellations, because

But the related part of said regulation is not bidirectional:

In fact, we were so clever before when setting up this unidirectional regulation, because too many companies have no other goal and business strategy than to be trolls and exploit legal loopholes instead of creating and inventing something on their own.
Please note that in case one company decides to start a new business activity, then other regulations take effect, specifically another part of the regulation concerning the grandfathering for existing business activities.

To end any squabbling and prevent new ones our SOPR decided to

• Superstructure, and also
• radio-based networks (cellular or mobile), and
• satellite-based networks, including
  • satellite Internet constellations,

and total

• orchestrating,

on the basis of its original and unique core principles and ways of

including

• orchestrations,

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Computational Intelligence (CI), including
  • Fuzzy Logic (FL),
  • Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
  • Evolutionary Computing (EC), including
    • Evolutionary Strategy (ES),
    • Evolutionary Algorithm (EA),
    • Genetic Algorithm (GA),
    • Evolutionary Programming (EP),
    • Genetic Programming (GP),
    • Hybrid Evolutionary Computing (HEC),
    • and so on,

    and

  • Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC),
• Soft Computing (SC),
• Computer Vision (CV),
• Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM),
• Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP),
  • Natural Language Processing (NLP),
  • Natural Image Processing (NIP),
  • and so on,
• Emotive Computing (EmoC) and Affective Computing (AffC), and Emotional Intelligence (EI),
• Autonomic Computing (AC),
• Cognitive Computing (CogC),
• Cognitive Vision (CogV),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS),
• Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS),
• Common Sense Computing (CSC),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• etc.,

and

• statistical learning and analysis,
• data mining,
• Big Data Fusion (BDF),
• Big Data Processing (BDP), and
• Big Data Analytics (BDA),

respectively Ontologic System Components (OSC) and Ontoscope Components (OsC) within the infrastructure or environments and their backbones, core networks, or fabrics respectively Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), including what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC),

a part of the mediation services between facilities and services of the exclusive infrastructure or environment of our SOPR.

The implications are that

(see the section Legal matter [Infrastructure] of the issues #296 of the 9th of August 2020 and #299 of the 21st of August 2020, and also the Clarification of the 14th of August 2020 and the section Legal matter of the issue #297 of the 14th of August 2020)

Social and Societal System (SSS)
What we suggested in relation to administrative investigations and personal data (see the section Digital rights [Data protection and data security] of the issue #307 of the 24th of November 2020) can also be adapted for improving our Social and Societal System (SSS) and related platforms, applications, and services:
The more prominent an account or user is, the higher the accountability should be.
Ideally, social media companies would ban public officials, celebrities, media personalities, and so-called influencers, who consistently lie or violate policies.

12.December.2020

22:56 UTC+1
King Smiley Further steps

We do like the real estate jewels in the U.S.America, U.K., Italy, Netherlands, and many other locations found and presented by all the many professionals.

The latest amazing object is this terrace.

Thank you very much for these clever elaborations of these incredible possibilities and opportunities.

13.December.2020

Ontonics Blitz Fund I #9.9.1

Now that the thing is out of the box, we would like to disclose that our Blitz Fund I managed by our HighTech Office Ontonics includes as

which

In addition, our Superbolt SX

together with our

Guess why it is called Superbolt and included in the Blitz Fund. :D

We highly recommend that investors invest in our Superbolts, but not in other companies, if they want to be members of the winning team and avoid to loose the money hold or managed by them.

By the way: The companies Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Airbus, Space Exploration Technologies, and Co., as well as other vehicle manufacturers and known persons in this field have eliminated themselves from competition with their unfair business practices and other illegal business activities over all the many years. If they touch anything of us for continuing with infringing the rights of C.S. and our corporation by

then they will get a lot of legal trouble by federal authorities and other entities.
They have shot their bolts and will be kept at bay by very strong and decisive social, legal, technical, and economical actions.

07:20, 09:10, 20:10, and 25:10 UTC+1
SOPR #310

*** Work in progress ***
Topics

Drastic crackdown measures have been discussed thoroughly and announced oftenly in the past, so that no entity needs to wonder or be surprised when we take more decisive action to protect our rights, properties, interests, goals, and integrities in relation to these topics:

Legal matter [Revision]
In relation to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), we discussed several times the issue that companies are

• damage in general or
• increase the damage even more, when acting in these listed ways in particular,

• replicating our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S.,
• mimicking C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, and also
• damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR,

so that we are forced to react by protecting and exploiting our rights, specifically our legal monopoly, and

For sure, by acting in this way they are violating the laws and thwarting the demands and benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the common good.

In total contrast, C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, have to provide and guarantee

simultaneously.

Eventually, we have been forced to infringe the gentleman agreement in the negotiation phase in a way, which contradicts the out-of-court agreement.
But ending the negotiation phase 18 days earlier or not does not make a difference after 3 years and in relation to the unresolved issues.
And the out-of-court agreement is not effective for blacklisted entities anyway.

Howsoever, we have introduced additional and new regulations to the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR as

For the details see the related sections Legal matter [Count of OAOS] and Legal matter [Satelitte constellations] below.

Legal matter [Count of OAOS]
As discussed before, a limitation of the count of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and as a Service (aaS) platforms to for example maximal 3 aaS platforms of each single legal entitiy, every single activity counts, might be required to avoid damages of the goals or even threats of the integrity of our SOPR.
Excessive aaS platforms have to be sold but can be bought back in case the limitation of the count of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) is increased or removed again.
Of course, our corporation enjoys a pre-sale right for excessive aaS platforms and is allowed to purchase as much as it wants as long as it does not infringe any law.

Please note that the decisive aspect is the legal connection between two or more entities by holding shares, having interests, or otherwise, but not what an individual company does alone.

The limitation will be effective at least in the period lasting from 2021 to 2025.
We will make a review of effectiveness at the end of 2025 to decide if we keep it up for the next 5 year period.

The issues with the so-called superapps becoming illegal Ontologic SubSystems (OSSs) and similar business developments are resolved by this regulation as well, obviously.

The structure 7%, 17%, 27% and 7% of the License Model (LM) for the ICT licensee class remains unchanged by this regulation, as is the case for all other licensee classes.

Legal matter [Satellite constellations]
We are thinking about this measure since around 1 year, though at first our consideration was only theoretical in nature.
We also tried to prevent this possibility of claiming an Ontologic SubSystem (OSS) and misusing our AWs and further IPs even against us and added also satellite Internet constellations explicitely to the shared backbone, core network, or fabric to separate networks from other facilities and services of the overall infrastructure of our SOPR.
But we anticipated that this measure might not be enough to reach our goals and indeed we had to learn that fraud is not avoided in other ways on the basis of satellite constellations.
But in the last days said measure became more real. Today, we found an argument for adding a related regulation to the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR without harming the core principles of our SOPR:
Because satelitte Internet constellations have been

with the intentions to

at least 3 times in the last years, only our SOPR can be allowed to own and manage such a communication infrastructure.
In this relation, we can assure the public and we do hope that we are able to make the point crystal clear that without those bad and illegal intentions we would have no problem with a space-based system in general at all.

We are also thinking about the question if Space Exploration Technologies with its Starlink satellite Internet constellation is eligible as being a Communications Service Provider (CSP), because of its next attempt to

Here is no place for outlaws of the long gone Wild West, who jump between states and Texas.

Please note that federal and public authorities, institutes, and other bodies have to establish joint ventures with our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation. This regulation of mandatory joint ventures also applies for the U.S.American Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the U.S.Army, the U.S.American Department of Homeland Security, the NASA, the NSF, the Federal Aviation Administration, and so on.
Therefore, it is prohibited that federal and public entities use the Starlink satellite Internet constellation for anything based on our OS with its Superstructure, such as the Global Information Grid of the third generation (GIG 3.0), also called Global Information Cloud (GIC) for better explanation and understanding, and also the many other cyberspace and military stuff based on our OS, the National Air Space (NAS) with the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), the fields of Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS), including Unmanned Aerial System (UAS), aerospace system, and so on.

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Separation and Registration]
We already discussed potential measures to counteract unwanted or even illegal

One suggested solution was to add an extra of 5% to the royalties according to our License Model (LM) to the royalties of stock listed companies.
But the whole issue escalated with the next attempt to create another hidden Ponzi scheme on our expense and with the intention to damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR, which led to the conclusion that all measures discussed so far would not solve the general issue of unwanted or even illegal actions at all.
For example, a public offering at a stock market of a company like for example Space Exploration Technologies or a business unit of it has to be viewed as an

to begin or continue with damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, which would be a breach of the out-of-court agreement and eventually result in the withdrawal of the membership in our SOPR and the license contract with our SOPR for the performance and reproduction of our AWs and further IPs.

Therefore, the (structural) separation of the Real Financial System (RFinS) and our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) seems to be the only solution.

Already effective is the regulation concerning the mandatory establishment of joint ventures between the

and our SOPR and our OntoBank.
The new regulation is that our SOPR does market regulation and oversight through our OFinS.
mandatory (structural) separation and registration of representations or branches of

in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.
Works like the Big Chinese Firewall and hence like a charm.

Some more regulations to restore truth and trust, and law and order:

• has already at least one IDentity account, which functions also as the account at our OntoBank, or
• gets at least one account at a registered bank or other service platform, or
• both.

These accounts have to be used to participate in the Ontologic Economic System (OES) in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.

If these new measures are not sufficient to prevent fraud, then in addition the mandatory establishment of joint ventures between such private entities and our SOPR and banks. Yes, we are establishing own banks and are looking for private banks to take them over.

Infrastructure [Transmission frequencies]
We hope that all members and licensees of our SOPR, who are holders of transmission frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum worldwide,

under the condition of the cost price sharing.

The alternative is, that our SOPR and some other entities will also bid for slots in a way that will guarantee our access on the one hand but might become a drama for some larger Communication Service Providers (CSPs) on the other hand.

14.December.2020

Ontonics Blitz Fund I #10.9.2

Why our Superbolt #9 Space Technologies (SX) is already the winner can be explained easily.
It does not matter how often a rocket can be reused. The customer is only interested in low costs and high safety, and our business unit Space Technologies (SX) will undercut in cost and outbid in quality the competition.

Howsoever and even better, the first stage of SX can be reused infinitely or not at all, because we just do not have one.

Besides this, our satellite constellations are also less expensive and also provide higher bandwith, shorter latency, higher throughput, as well as the performance of the 5th Generation standard for wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks (5G) and exclusively the functionalities of the 5G of the Next Generation (5G NG) based on what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Fog, and Edge Computing (GCFEC) and other properties and parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S.. The competitors have no allowance to perform and reproduce these parts of our Ontologic System, because they are related to our Superstructure included in the exclusive infrastructure of our SOPR.

We would also like to present our new and worlds first and only Door-to-Door (D2D) and Lab-to-Lab (L2L) services. Of course, we do mean Earth-to-Space (E2S), because after all we are SpaceTechs, SpaceTex, SpX, and SX.

It is time for winner investors to safe their share slot of our Superbolt #9 Space Technologies (SX) of our Blitz Fund I managed by our HighTech Office Ontonics together with financial partners qualified and registered in our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) of our SOPR.

15.December.2020

Clarification

Funny thing: By copying everything of our corporation and conducting mutual espionage every company in the fields of Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS), specifically every manufacturer of self-driving cars, autonomous vehicles, robotaxis, and so on, has taken the related elements of our Ontologic System (OS) as technological basis for own vehicles and related technologies, goods, and service, which were unforeseeable and unexpected by an expert in the related fields respectively a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) at the time of their creation by C.S..
But we also anticipated already in the year 2005 and once again in the year 2007 that this situation will come. The same holds for our HCS and the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and Transportation as a Service (TaaS) capability models and operational models based on our OS and HCS.

We can very well remember the echo when we said self-driving car, despite that the related challenge of the DARPA ended some months before, and when we later also said AutoCloud. Honestly, we did not expect that they were such giant steps, specifically in relation to MaaS and TaaS.
In relation to the self-driving car and the autonomous car it was absolutely unbelievable to have such vehicles on public roads at that time. In fact, the related technologies and vehicles were only viewed as

but without having any grounding in reality let alone being a reason to begin with investing own capital in research and development activities for public and private mobility in public and private areas. No way for the common industrial manager, absolutely no way that K.I.T.T. of Knight Rider will become a reality in the next, expectable and foreseeable future.
And then we showed an image of a self-driving car, which was one of the science fiction and fantasy technologies discussed in relation to the television series Eureka. And that made such a giant boom, which we have not seen since the introduction of the mobile phone that fits into a pants pocket and a handbag.
And then we said more just for fun and to have something related to "Das Auto", "Autostadt", and "The Cloud": AutoCloud. And here was no sound to here, but silence. They all wondered or said what an utter nonsense: For What Is That Worth Now (FWITWN)? And some years later one could hear in the distance the fierce growling and rumbling of the upcoming storm coming nearer and nearer and boooooooooooooooooom.

23:33 UTC+1
SOPR #311

*** Work in progress - some thoughts and alignment with other content missing ***
Topics
This issue deals with the following topics concerning legal matter:

Legal matter [Count of OAOS]
We do listen and care for the members and licensees of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) to guarantee

The limitation of the count of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and as a Service (aaS) platforms introduced in the issue #310 of the 13th of December 2020 remains effective, because

It also

which doubtlessly

In adddition, bad actors can be recognized much more easily by also classifying and counting the OAOS and aaS platforms provided.

But the maximal count of OAOS and aaS platforms has been increased to 15 OAOS and aaS platforms plus bonus program of 5 OAOS and aaS platforms.
The bonus program should award proper members and licensees, who

but has not been worked out completely.

Please note that we do not differentiate between horizontal and vertical aaS at this time, though this would add another dimension and more possibilities.

Legal matter [Count of investments]
As discussed before, a limitation of the count of investments in companies to maximal 20 per licensee class by each single legal entity, every single activity counts, is required to avoid damages of the goals or even threats of the integrity of our SOPR.
The limitation of the count of investments is considered to be constructive, because

Investors have the opportunity to invest unlimitedly in the

also managed by our business unit Ontonics due to the reasons that our

• performing and replicating our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S.,
• mimicking C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, and also
• damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR.

Legal matter [Satellite constellations]
Historically, satellite Cloud constellations with related as a Service (aaS) capability models and operational models were introduced with our original and unique Ontologic System (OS). In fact, there was no Global Information Grid of the third generation (GIG 3.0), also called Global Information Cloud (GIC), as successor of the Global Information Grid of the second generation (GIG 2.0) by any other entity before the presentation of our OS, doubtlessly, because the

The same holds for all other developments in other countries related to unified space activities and space-based broadband Internet services, that even began many years after getting awarness about our OS. There were no analogies and every other claim is fantasy, fiction, fraud, and so on.
As we said before in the issue #310 of the 13th of December 2020, this should be open for licensing.

Technically, the

are right in their interpretation of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR.
When we looked at the technology in some more detail, then we concluded that the situation of space-based communication [and transmission] and satellite constellation technologies, goods, and services is the same with the 5th Generation standard for wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks (5G) and all other wireless network technologies, goods, and services with the exception or the difference that cellular networks are surface-based (2D) and satellite constellation are space-based (3D).
Because we have no problem with 5G in general, we cannot have a problem with said other wireless technologies and as long as they comply with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, our SOPR does not want to reject, limit, block, prohibit, or interfere in any other way in relation to their activities.

When we looked at the legality, then we concluded that they are not always right. The out-of-court agreement or whatever agreement, contract, and so on is entered eventually includes the clause that stops the mimicking of C.S. and our corporation, because this is one of the main reasons why we open and license our OS. But this implies among other things, that there are exclusive parts and hence there is no level playing field, whereby we even have the opinion that as long as laws are not broken, there must be no level playing field. The latter is still contested unsuccessfully despite our comprehensible, reasonable, and much better arguments.

One remaining problem is the fact that both fields taken alone and together as an integration are essential elements of the

But the demand that also satellite constellations are parts of the shared backbone, core network, or fabric of the infrastructure of our SOPR, and the management, specifically the orchestration, is an exclusive task of our SOPR.

Another problem is that the clustering of market power between leading Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) service providers, who are also leading

In addition, the ways the entities acted in the past, are acting in the present, and most potentially will act in the future are infringements of those regulations in the legal matter, which should prevent these acts.

Besides this, the general problem is even more increased by the fact that we also have once again a hidden Ponzi scheme with Space Ex, which is deliberately supported by Microsoft to damage our goals and even threaten our integrity. Microsoft and Space Ex know what we are doing, what they are doing, and also what the investors and the banks are doing. Due to these facts, our opinion is that such alliances are by no way just happenstances, because they are very precisely conceived and put into action to reproduce, mimick, and also damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, and therefore illegal conspiracies once again.

At this point we rightfully said in every respect: Stop. No way.
But we also want something that is more in compliance with the antitrust laws and the core principles of our SOPR, and more elegant and more Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) than just reject, limit, block, prohibit, or interfere, though our rights provide us a relatively large scope for possible measures in this respect.

The big question is how to handle that in general without interference by our SOPR.
We made decisions or let us call them suggestions to handle the issue, because orchestrating between

does not avoid the other damages and threats. And we also made it crystal clear that we even do not see any reason why we should accept to be tricked out by hidden Ponzi schemes or other illegal business activities as well as actions by the responsible federal authorities and their cliques, and make them presents of 50 to 75% of our profits.

17.December.2020

Clarification

We would like to share some considerations about legal matter related to our Ontologic System and further works included in the oeuvre of C.S. and discuss the latest actions of antitrust authorities.
We quote a first report: "The monopoly tax [a company] imposes on [...] businesses [...] is a tax that is ultimately borne by [...] consumers through higher prices and lower quality on the goods, services and information those businesses provide," [the state prosecutors] said in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit argues that [a company] used a variety of tactics to become the dominant player in [a market sector], hurting [other companies], competitors and consumers in the process.
Prosecutors said that [... a company] "quickly began to use its new position to exert leverage."
They said that [a company] then tried to destroy a process designed by [other companies] to introduce more competition into the market for [items]. Under that system, [other companies] were able to sell [assets] in more online marketplaces at once, reducing their reliance on a company]'s [...] tech[nology].
The states said that [a company] had maintained its dominance in part by reaching an agreement with [another company] to limit the [other company]'s involvement in that process. In return, [a company] gave [the other company] an advantage in other [activities] it runs, the prosecutors said.
"The companies' efforts to avoid competition were successful," they said in the lawsuit.
[...]
"The powerful market position that [a company] holds in search also had helped them to develop this powerful market position in advertising technology, and that's part of this complaint," [a lobbyist] said.
[...]
"In no other market do you have one entity that represents most of the buyers, most of the sellers and controls the leading exchange," he said. "You can create a system that on the surface looks robustly competitive but it really isn't.""

We quote a second report: "The lawsuit is being led by eight states [of the U.S.America]. It mirrors an earlier antitrust suit filed by the Justice Department and 11 states earlier this fall that claimed [a company] uses anticompetitive agreements to secure a dominant position for its search engine on smartphones.
But it also goes further, tacking on additional allegations that [a company] moved to block or downrank search results from specialized engines in the travel, home improvement and entertainment sectors.
"The states also allege that [a company]'s acquisition and command of vast amounts of data obtained because of consumers' lack of choice has fortified [a company]'s monopolies and created new barriers to competition and consumer value," said a release from the office of [a state] Attorney [...].
[Another state] Attorney [...] said in a statement: "For decades now, [a company] has served as the gatekeeper of the internet and has weaponized our data to kill off competitors and control our decision making - resulting in all of us paying more for the services we use every day."

Once again, we have nothing done that infringed any right of anybody, specifically we have nothing done that is a legal subject matter respectively a charge of a lawsuit, like the ones mentioned above.

We are the true origin of our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs), which are included in the oeuvre of C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S.. Therefore, we hold an absolutely legal monopoly.
We have nobody forced to perform and reproduce our AWs and further IPs in general and in illegal ways in particular.
We even have proposed a compromise with the worldwide public after we were blackmailed by governments, industries, and other entities, and drafted a related common and standard set of rules to open significant parts of our AWs and further IPs for licensing these parts by others under

that

Therefore, we do not take an antisocial, illegal monopoly tax, but jsut collect absolutely usual, legal royalties.

We also have to emphasize once again in this relation, that freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico have to happen on the level of the old Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), our OS, and other such technologies, but not inside our OS for getting the power of control over our OS in whole or in part, which other entities do not want to understand.

Eventually, the reason for any exclusivity is quite simple: We are not your slaves. .(← This is a period again.)

04:32 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We read two more reports about the Proposal for a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) (PfDSA) and Proposal for Contestable And Fair Markets in the Digital Sector Digital Markets Act (DMA) (PfDMA) of the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU).

In general, there is no surprise in respect to the intention, scope, and basic approach, but also the devil hidden in the details.
We quote a report: "Another measure aimed at fostering competition would prevent the largest platforms from giving their products [and services] better treatment over rivals, potentially affecting how Google displays search results or what products [and services] Amazon promotes.
Regulators would have a path for breaking up companies that repeatedly violate E.U. antitrust laws.
Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission executive vice president who oversees digital policy and antitrust enforcement, said the global tech policy debate is a "different world" compared to five years ago when she [followed us more than 5 years later and] was criticized for taking action against Google and other American firms.
Now, she said, there is broad agreement that "with size comes responsibility."
[...]
Raegan MacDonald, head of public policy in Brussels for the Mozilla Foundation, which operates the Firefox [web] browser, called the efforts in Europe a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity, particularly the transparency rules that would provide important insights about how the companies operate.
"What this is really about at its core is how people experience the web - the misinformation in our feeds, the recommendations that are being pushed toward us, or the creepy ads we're seeing and don't know why," she said. "If this is done well, this could be game changing regulation for platform accountability.""

Yes indeed, the PfDMA and the PfDSA could be a revolution and a game changer, and with property comes responsibility and with a larger property comes more responsibilty.
But one should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
We would like to begin where we ended with the Proposal for a Data Governance Act (PfDGA) and give the reminder that we are talking about properties and essential business secrets.

In regard to transparency, a balance has to be found that

simultaneously.
Eventually, the transparency must be provided in a way that the gained additional digital and virtual properties or assets (e.g. data, informations, algorithms) are protected from other use, as in the case of digital governance, specifically the sharing of digital and virtual properties or assets.
At this piont we find it interesting how governance and transparence overlap, and how it leads us once again to our Ontologic System (OS) and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

We thought about our solution for the problems, which are addressed with the PfDMA and PfDSA, many months if not some few years ago and when we studied the PfDGA we got once again the view that our SOPR Trustee and SOPR Public Trustee are our solution for said problems and can also solve the demand for transprency.
In fact, one of the many original and unique expressions created, presented, and discussed with our OS is to extend the works of Nick Szabo and Co. (smart contract, blockchain, Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), validated and verified computing, etc.) with for example our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and other advanced high technologies, which are illegally used for digital and virtual currencies like for example Bitcoin, to a foundational principle in computing and networking, information processing and sharing, and so on, that we also called recently Trust Management System (TMS) as part of our OS.

Style of Speed Further steps

Our unparalled and unmatched success story at Style of Speed continues and there is no end in sight.

After our model Porsche Pan in the Taycan variant showed the way how our business unit Style of Speed (SoS) is able to

even out of nothing with a little bit of hot air by leading the way for other teams, our model Ford Mustang E in the Mach-E variant, specifically in its GT version, is the next Pure Electric™ or Purely Electric™ car after other variants of our original models manufactured by the companies Porsche/Volkswagen and General Motors, that is viewed as the first normal, mainstream alternative to models in the Performance version manufactured by the company Tesla Motors.
Obviously, that latter is still wrongly viewed as the pioneer and industry leader.

19.December.2020

Ontonics Further steps

Maybe our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) Exchange (OntoX or OX) of the infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) becomes the largest stock exchange on its own by usual growth and definitely when taking over the company Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).

By the way: Stop trading that illegal virtual currency Bitcoin immediately, because our SOPR gave no allowance and will give no allowance to perform and reproduce the related parts, specifically our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

21.December.2020

22.December.2020

13:47 UTC+1
SOPR #312

*** Work in progress ***
Topics
In this issue we summarize, formulate correctly, and elaborate in more detail wherever needed our notes and statements of the last days and explain our reactions to activities in relation to these topics:

Legal matter [Start and scope of agreement]
In general, what has been publicated since the September of 2017 by C.S. is included in the oeuvre of C.S., obviously, but not opened for licensing without explicit allowance by one of our Societies.
And what we have begun to build up and presented as part of our Societies will not be copied, but enjoyed as member and licensee.

(see also the section Legal matter [Mimicking of SOPR] of the issue SOPR #306 of the 26th of October 2020 and the section Legal matter [Start and scope of agreement] of the issues #309 of the 11th of December 2020)

There are fine lines to mind, for example in relation to our High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) and orbit satellite constellations, and our Superstructure (see the related sections Legal matter [Satellite constellations] and Superstructure [Satellite constellations] below).

Breaching or infringing the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Societies leads to

We are working on the regulation concerning the conventional penalties, but they will be high enough to give the strong recommendation not to breach the AoA and the ToS.

To make long things short: Do not touch what will come next, because refusing to do so will end any relation to us and most potentially much more.

Legal matter [Satellite constellations]
As discussed before, a limitation of the count of satellites of a satellite constellation is required to avoid damages of the goals or even threats of the integrity of our SOPR.

Furthermore, the Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities said in relation to its satellite constellation Sfera==Sphere: "It is known that [Space Exploration Technologies] Starlink and OneWeb [and also Amazon Project Kuiper] are aimed exclusively at solving the problems of communication and transmission of large amounts of information." We also have understood their marketing materials exactly in this way.

A higher bandwidth means that more data can be transfered. It does not mean how fast that communication and transmission takes place. A lower latency means that a higher throughput can be achieved and more data can be transfered with certain network protocols.
For better comparison and understanding, we listed typical approximate values for round-trip latency of wireless communication technologies below:

In fact, "[i]n the event of a network element failure when recovery mechanisms are employed at the [Internet Protocol (]IP[)] layer, restoration may take several seconds which may be unacceptable for real-time applications, such as [Voice over Internet Protocol (]VoIP[)].[27][28][29] In contrast, MPLS local protection meets the requirements of real-time applications with recovery times comparable to those of shortest path bridging networks or [Synchronous Optical NETworking (]SONET[)] rings of less than 50 ms.[27][29][30]"

Earth-to-sat latencies of around 25 to 35 ms means higher throughput, but also satellite real-time networks operated in 3D space in contrast to mobile and stationary real-time networks operated on 2D surface.

• operation of networks in real-time and 3D space, and
• utilization of essential parts of our OS in relation to such computing, networking, and communication technologies, including
  • Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) platforms,
  • as a Service (aaS) capability models and operational models,
  • fields of Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), Networked Embedded System (NES),
  • and much more,
  
  were unforeseeable and unexpected by an expert in the related fields respectively a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) at the time of its creation by C.S. and therefore are excluded from the performance and reprodcution by other entities and included in our exclusive Superstructure (see also the section Superstructure [Satellite constellations] below).

Therefore, we

The satellite number of 1,000 units might sound arbitrary, but

• company Microsoft and
• U.S.American Department of Defense (DoD) with its Global Information Grid (GIG),

and

prove that not more than around 660 satellites are neccessary to provide global coverage.

The time span of 120 ms might sound arbitrary, but

prove that not shorter than 477 over 600 to 800 ms of round-trip latencies are neccessary to provide global coverage and not shorter than 120 ms round-trip latency is neccessary to provide broadband network data communication and transmission.

Eventually,

that are sufficient for providing complete Internet coverage on planet Earth for broadband network applications and services like for example

In addition, we might demand the support or utilization of more advanced network protocols like for example the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).

Operators or providers of satellite constelllations with more than 1,000 satellites have to handover all excessive satellites or alternatively whole satellite constellations to our SOPR or another business unit of our corporation for the cost price for an ordinary customer.
Operators or providers of satellite constelllations with one or more satellites operated with a round-trip latency under 120 ms have to reduce the velocity of data transmission respectively increase the round-trip latency to 120 ms or more, or alternatively handover all faster satellites.

see the sections related to satellite constellations of the issues #309 of the 11th of December 2020, SOPR #310 of the 13th of December 2020 and SOPR #311 of the 15th of December 2020

We would also like to point out the further

• users still have the choice of all service providers,
• satellite constellations with more satellites and shorter round-trip latency are no innovation at all, but merely trivial quantitative optimizing and scaling, and
• competition between service providers still takes place.

Infrastructure [Initialization]
To initialize the infrastructure of our SOPR in a way, that

we have collected the following first steps:

• complete situational awarness in general and
• crystal clear routing in particular.

• digital level for any bit transport and
• physical level for any voltage fluctuation.

A wire should be considered as safe, if there is

• only digital transfer of known signals, data, and information, when needed, and
• no physical transfer of signals, data, and informations, when not needed.

• not required for the moment or
• obsolete.

• can be used from validated and verified sticks or other data media, and
• must not be installed on a harddisk or other non-volatile storage of the server.

• flashed, formated, or randomly written, and then rewritten with tools, etc. at separated computers or other suitable devices, which again must be checked and monitored all the time, or
• exchanged for new data media.

Infrastructure [Cybersecurity and cybersafety]
The latest on the largest cyber attack on the U.S.America showed once again
why our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is not risking all those human disabilities. Therefore, our SOPR

in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.

Superstructure [Satellite constellations]
There are fine lines to mind. For example,

with

Please note that there are other regulations included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), which regulate these and other single fields.

Projects [Mars mission]
We are thinking about making our original Mars mission another project of our SOPR.

27.December.2020

Clarification

We quote a webpage of a chip manufacturer: "Extended Reality (XR) is an umbrella term encapsulating Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR), and everything in between."

What an utter nonsense, this spectrum or reality-virtuality continuum already is MR either after the definition of

• also includes the limits of real or complete reality, and virtual or complete virtuality,
• does not position the reality or the real and physical world as opposed to the virtuality or the virtual and cybernetical (also called digital in this context) world or even metaphysical world due our foundational Caliber/Calibre that fusion both worlds in a bidirectional way, and
• is included together with other realities and worlds in our foundational New Reality (NR),

as we already explained some years ago.
And pervasive or ubiquitous XR respectively MR is still a part of our New Reality (NR) and Ontologic uniVerse (OV or Ontoverse) based on our Caliber/Calibre and eventually on our Ontologic System (OS), as it also holds for fields like

And because C.S. is the creator of the OS, we hold the right to claim, name, and define these parts and all other parts of our OS, and also license their performance and reproduction, as well as modification, but no other entity.

15:00 and 17:11 UTC+1
OS includes 5G NG, 6G, and their use cases and devices

We read a document that is titled itself "[...] visions" and copies the copyright protected publications of C.S. and our OntoLab, the Lab of Visions, related to our Ontologic System (OS) and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) wherever possible.
Obviously, that document is written to mislead the public about the true origin of our original and unique work of arts titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, including what is called the

created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., once again.
Maybe we will publicate our investigation at a latter time, as in case of many other investigations of plagiarists and their plagiarisms. At least related preparations are far advanced beyond our usual approach.

To make things short: Membership in our SOPR is mandatory by international and national laws, regulations, acts, as well as agreements.
The governments and the industries are aware about the facts at least since more than 14 years, so that there is no doubt and discussion about our rights as well as terms and conditions. Indeed, one can view the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR as some kind of extension of the worldwide copyright.

By the way: We do not know why the lying press, like the public-law broadcasters in the F.R.Germany, and scientists are claiming that nonsense that no 6G programm exists in Europe, when it is provable in court that it is included in our OS and originated in F.R.Germany.

23:51 UTC+1
Finnish entities are not allowed to claim for our visions, creations, and works

What is the problem in Finland? We clearly demanded, that no entity claims for our visions, works of art, and other works created by C.S..

The Finnish government, research institutes, and companies, specifically Nokia have to comply with international and national laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, and also the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), or we will act with switching off computers, networks, and lights.

We are also observing a certain concordance with what the European Commission is doing.

And what on Earth have the United Nations and the World Health Organization to do with our original and unique ArtWorks and further Intellectual Properties in common? Nothing, because we have our SOPR.

30.December.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We have begun with the examination of the Proposal for a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) (PfDSA) and Proposal for Contestable And Fair Markets in the Digital Sector Digital Markets Act (DMA) (PfDMA), which are included in the Digital Services Act package of the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU).
At first, we quote the related webpage The Digital Services Act package to give our fans and readers a first impression about these proposals: "The Digital Services Act package
The Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act encompass a single set of new rules applicable across the whole EU. They will create a safer and more open digital space, with European values at its centre.
As part of the European Digital Strategy, Shaping Europe's Digital Future, it was annouonced that the European Commission would upgrade the rules governing digital services in the EU. The European Commission proposed two legislative initiatives: the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The DSA and DMA have two main goals:

1. to create a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected
2. to establish a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness, both in the European Single Market and globally

What are Digital Services?
Digital services include a large category of online services, from simple websites to internet infrastructure services and online platforms.
The rules specified in the DSA primarily concern online intermediaries and platforms. For example, online marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores as well as online travel and accommodation platforms.
The Digital Markets Act includes rules that govern gatekeeper online platforms. Gatekeeper platforms are digital platforms with a systemic role in the internal market that function as bottlenecks between businesses and consumers for important digital services. Some of these services are also covered in the Digital Services Act, but for different reasons and with different types of provisions."

Why do we need new rules?
[...] We need to ensure that European legislation evolves with them.
[...]
Despite a range of targeted, sector-specific interventions at EU-level, there are still significant gaps and legal burdens to address.
The accelerating digitalisation of society and the economy has created a situation where a few large platforms control important ecosystems in the digital economy. They have emerged as gatekeepers in digital markets, with the power to act as private rule-makers. These rules, however, sometimes result in unfair conditions for businesses using these platforms and less choice for consumers.
With these developments in mind, the European Single Market requires a modern legal framework that ensures the safety of users online, establishes governance with the protection of fundamental rights at its forefront, and maintains fair and open online platform environment.

What was the process up to now and how were stakeholders involved?
[...]"

Please keep in mind that the PfDSA and PfDMA, specifically their focus "only on those digital services that are most widely used by business users and end users ("core platform services") "provided or offered by gatekeepers", "complements existing EU (and national) competition rules", which allows our SOPR to revise the AoA and the ToS with the LM, though this is not important anymore in some hours after the negotiation phase for an out-of-court agreement ends finally.

So let us have a first look at the

In the following, we quote and comment some relevant sections of the Explanatory Memorandum of the PfDMA:

"Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced in certain digital services than others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services and infrastructures that mostly directly intermediate between business users and end users. The enforcement experience under EU competition rules, numerous expert reports and studies and the results of the OPC show that there are a number of digital services that have the following features:
(i) highly concentrated multi-sided platform services, where usually one or very few large digital platforms set the commercial conditions with considerable autonomy;
(ii) a few large digital platforms act as gateways for business users to reach their customers and vice-versa; and
(iii) gatekeeper power of these large digital platforms is often misused by means of unfair behaviour vis-à-vis economically dependent business users and customers.3
The proposal is therefore further limited to a number of 'core platform services' where the identified problems are most evident and prominent and where the presence of a limited number of large online platforms that serve as gateways for business users and end users has led or is likely to lead to weak contestability of these services and of the markets in which these intervene. These core platform services include:
(i) online intermediation services (incl. for example marketplaces, app stores and online intermediation services in other sectors like mobility, transport or energy)
(ii) online search engines,
(iii) social networking
(iv) video sharing platform services,
(v) number-independent interpersonal electronic communication services,
(vi) operating systems,
(vii) cloud services and
(viii) advertising services, including advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, where these advertising services are being related to one or more of the other core platform services mentioned above."

"The [PfDMA] complements the data protection laws. Transparency obligations on deep consumer profiling will help inform General Data Protection Regulation ('GDPR') enforcement, whereas mandatory opt-out for data combination across core platform services supplements the existing level of protection under the GDPR."
O.K., but why is this complementation not part of a revision of the GDPR?

"The proposal provides for the possibility of a tailored application of some of the obligations through a dialogue between the Commission and the gatekeepers concerned. In addition, it allows to cover in a flexible way additional practices that are similarly unfair or that equally put fairness or contestability at risk after a thorough market investigation on the impact of those practices."
This provides free space to navigate and act.

"In general, the public consultations offered strong support for an intervention tackling unfair practices engaged in by gatekeepers. In fact, the large majority of the respondents to the public consultations and to a separate questionnaire addressed to national competition authorities agreed that there are structural problems that cannot be addressed under the existing competition rules; the same majority believed that the Commission should be able to intervene in markets where gatekeepers are present. This view was expressed by a large majority of businesses and business associations, all civil society organisations (including Non-Governmental Organisations ('NGOs') and trade unions) and all public authorities. Consumer organisations like BEUC have also prominently flagged the particular concerns surrounding online platforms and digital markets. [...]
Online platforms were split on the issue, with the majority of large online platforms and their representative associations questioning the need for a new gatekeeper instrument. On the other side, many small and medium sized platforms, in particular those that are business users of large online platforms, expressed their support for a new gatekeeper instrument."
We would like to note, that none of these entities is in the difficult position of a gatekeeper. Ruling over others activities and properties is easy. So let us handle the issue in a highly objective and constructive way.

"Those disagreeing referred to the fact that the concept of a gatekeeper is too broad and should instead be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that the Commission can already intervene in the case of the conduct of a gatekeeper contravening Article 102 TFEU. However, the Commission considered that Article 102 TFEU is not sufficient to deal with all the problems associated with gatekeepers, given that a gatekeeper may not necessarily be a dominant player, and its practices may not be captured by Article 102 TFEU if there is no demonstrable effect on competition within clearly defined relevant markets."
Honestly, we lack sufficient fantasy to find this argument of the EC conclusive. If a gatekeeper is not dominant and an activity of said gatekeeper has no demonstrable effect on competition, then there is nothing to regulate at all. Furthermore, a gatekeeper is always dominant by definition and hence the classification of a gatekeeper by the EC must be just plain wrong.

"The benefits can be expected to lead to a greater innovation potential amongst smaller businesses as well as an improved quality of service, with associated increases in consumer welfare."
The improvement or maximization of user welfare or (human perception-based) Quality of Experience (QoE) is missing.

"The improved contestability of core platform services under the preferred option has the potential to yield a consumer surplus estimated at EUR 13 billion, i.e. an increase of around 6% as compared to the baseline scenario."
Ah, what ...? We have not read Annex 3 to the Impact Assessment, but this whole statement sounds a little bit like nonsense.

"A more comprehensive enforcement toolkit will allow businesses to thrive on the merits of their abilities. This will result in economic growth, which in turn translates into higher tax revenues for national administrations. [...]
Fairness and enhanced contestability in the digital sector would result in higher productivity, which would translate into higher economic growth. The promotion of greater contestability of core platform services and digital markets is also of particular importance in increasing trade and investment flows."
In general, we cannot agree to these statements, but are even critical to some extent. For example, one might only see an redistribution of tasks or even worse a disturbance or dissolution of a market sector. If one takes away the (self-planted) forest from an owner, you also remove the guardian of the forest. Also, socialism has shown what happens when farms are taken away and operated as kolkhozes or collective farms.

"The proposal also specifically aims at facilitating the sustainable growth of core platform services and the platform economy more broadly and is designed to be fully technologically-neutral."
Interesting

"2020/0374 (COD)
Finally, the remaining provisions in this Chapter are the review clause (Article 38) and the specification of the entry into force and dates of application of the Regulation (Article [39).]"
There seems to be an error on page 15.

"Chapter I sets out the general provisions, including the subject matter, aim and scope of the Regulation, including its harmonising effect in relation to certain national laws (Article 1), and the definitions of the terms used in, as well as the objectives of the proposal (Article 2)."
The Article 2 points directly to our Ontologic System.

"Chapter III sets out the practices of gatekeepers that limit contestability and that are unfair. In particular, it lays down self-executing obligations (Article 5) and obligations that are susceptible to specification (Article 6) that the designated gatekeepers should comply with in respect of each of their core platform services listed in the relevant designation decision. In addition, it establishes a framework for a possible dialogue between the designated gatekeeper and the Commission in relation to measures that the gatekeeper implements or intends to implement in order to comply with the obligations set out in Article 6 (Article 7). It also lays down conditions under which the obligations for an individual core platform service may be suspended in exceptional circumstances (Article 8) or an exemption can be granted on grounds of public interest (Article 9). Additional provisions in this Chapter establish a mechanism for updating the list of obligations (Article 10); a clarification that the obligations laid down in the Regulation apply regardless of whether the relevant practice of the designated gatekeeper is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature (Article 11); an obligation to notify any intended concentration within the meaning of the EU Merger Regulation (Article 12); and an obligation on the designated gatekeeper to submit any techniques for profiling of consumers that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services to an independent audit (Article 13)."
Note the Article 11, which points directly to the activities of C.S. and our corporation, specifically our societies.

11:15 and 19:00 UTC+1
Collaboration with P.R.China

We quote a report about the European Union (EU) and P.R.China business investment agreement: "The EU and China are close to reaching a long-awaited business investment deal, according to media reports.
The pact, expected to be finalised this week, will give EU firms better access to the Chinese market and improve competition conditions.
Talks on the investment deal began in 2014 but have been stuck for years over a number of issues.
But rising trade tensions between the US[America] and China may have helped change the Chinese position, officials said.
According to multiple reports, the deal would open up China's manufacturing sector to EU companies, as well as construction, advertising, air transport and telecoms.
One of the sticking points was China's demands for access to the EU's energy market given sensitivities over national security.
The deal is expected to give Beijing access to a small part of the European renewable energy sector on a reciprocal basis.
The pact is also designed to remove barriers to investment in China, such as joint-venture requirements and caps on foreign ownership in certain industries."

The whole procedure and the latest related development are quite interesting from several points of view:

We can assure our friends in the P.R.China, that we will act in lockstep to their activities regarding the establishment of more harmony and the rule of law. But honestly,

• respects our rights and properties, and also
• holds on to its promises,

and

• worldwide infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including our Superstructure, and
• U.S.American Power Grid and European Power Grid due to our Clean and Green technology, specifically our battery, fusion reactor, and other disclosed and undisclosed technologies, goods, and services.

Howsoever, we all have a lot of negotiating mass and bargaining chips, so that compromises might be possible in a way, that everybody should be able to reach the own goals.
In addition, the P.R.China is free to completely comply with

If we are allowed to do so, then we would like to give our friends in the P.R.China the recommendation to develop its society and its country to the next levels, which are not only defined by aspects of progress in technology, military, and territory.

The tide has turned long ago and things have to be done in a very big way. So let's go.