Legal matter
We are thinking once again about demanding the common (triple) damage compensations and all profit generated illegally, and also about the new due date with the 1st of January 2000 after our new findings in relation to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and the fields of

"Recalling antitrust cases ranging from Standard Oil to Microsoft, [a U.S.American politician's] plan [or proposed law] involves legislation that would create a new designation: a 'platform utility'. [The politician] defines a platform utilit[ies] as "companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties. These platform utilities would then be forbidden from "owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform.""
For example, a company classified as a platform utility would not be allowed to both

under a proposed law.

We have the opinion that this approach

because it also harms freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, eventually.
It would even infringe the personal rights of artists, specifically the copyright, to exploit their creations without any limitations, specifically C.S.' right to exploit the OS.

Our other suggestion is to limit the number of platform types a company is allowed to be one of the 5 or 10 market leaders (see the issue #269 of the 23rd of January 2020).

As the field of computing platform has different abstraction levels, such as for example

the same also holds for the platforms and service models of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), also wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) and Everything as as Service (EaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Technology as a Service (TaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Service as a Service (SaaS or SeraaS).

In the issue #265 of the 9th of January 2020 we extended this with the Technology as a Service (TaaS) and Service as a Service (SaaS) models to reflect the self-contained characteristic of the Everything as as Service (EaaS) model of SOx.
In the issue #269 of the 23rd of January 2020
IaaS
carrier cloud
orchestration, meshing

PaaS
design elements (e.g. models, frameworks, etc.) based on our Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and also given by our SOPR, if required (see the issue #223 of the 24th of August 2019)

For any consideration and action a classification system is required

A market research resulted in the segmentation of the market into the following types of platform:

In a comment made on the 28th of January 2020 we noted
The (OS or system?) core, specifically the virtualized parts respectively the related data centers, telco or carrier cloud, edge, and fog ..., as well as (core) Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), (utility) Technology as a Service (TaaS), (utility) Platform as a Service (PaaS) (not to be confused with the common platform utilities (as defined above?)) are parts of the (OS or system?) core of the infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including

exclusively managed and operated by

• Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), specifically
  • Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) or telecommunications companies (telcos or telecoms), and
  • Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
• Web Service Providers (WSPs), and
• Cloud Service Providers (CSPs our ClSPs).

This arrangement has been found, developed, and chosen, because

In this context, it is of immense importance to not confuse

• old Internet and old World Wide Web (WWW) without our OS, and also our OS with its successors ON, OW, and OV (see also for example the Clarification of the 13th of November 2019), and
• platforms allowed by C.S. (see above),

In a comment made on the 28th of January 2020 we noted that satellite constellations must comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our managing and collecting societies

There are no legal loopholes in relation to the integration of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) with satellite constellations, like for example OneWeb, Starlink constructed by the company Space Explorations, utilized for providing broadband or internet or both services, specifically in relation to the fields of

We already have our managing and collecting societies

and changed the regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) accordingly in the direction of contractor, supplier, and provider for the infrastructure of our SOPR.

Any strategy made in this direction was a waste of time. :)

By the way: Our Superstructure is superior in every aspect.

Non-aggression agreement
In the issue #243 of the 3rd of November 2019 we said that the non-aggression agreement is not in effect anymore since around February 2019 for all companies, that continued with a fierce competition even by utilizing our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S., and concluded that only some very few technologies, goods, and services fall under the scope of said non-aggression agreement at all.
But sadly to say, even in this very few cases said non-aggression agreement has become void due to the legal finding by a court that activities, like for example entering a non-aggression agreement or paying a competitor for not competing, are illegal, because they harm competition.
But collaborations and joint ventures are still allowed.

06.February.2020

01:53, 10:28, and 30:47 UTC+1
SOPR #271

*** Work in progress - some few better wording ***
Topics
This issue is about financial matter:

Legal matter
...

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)
Our incredible successor story continues. In fact, our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) is rocketing and becoming the standard for central banks and thus for all financial institutes worldwide.

"Less than two years ago [the Governor of the U.S.American Federal Reserve (Fed),] Lael Brainard[,] told a conference in San Francisco[, U.S.A.,] that there is "no compelling demonstrated need" for such a [Fed]coin."
But after

• its working in more detail on the one hand as well as
• the illegality of digital and virtual currencies based on our foundational distributed ledger technology on the other hand,

in the last few years and

we provided the convincing social, political, legal, technological, and economical reasons but also imparted the urgency to act.
Correspondingly, the

As not expected otherwise all the years, the Fed now also announced to be working on a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), so to say the digital U.S. Dollar, also called the Fedcoin, based on a blockchain system or other digital ledger.

Needless to recall, but we do it again as part of our usual monthly recall of facts, the

• be based on our Ontologic System (OS), doubtlessly,
• be based on a digital ledger, which again is based on our distributed ledger technology and hooked into our universal ledger, definetly, and
• be a part of our OFinS, eventually,

and

as every other central bank with its CBDC and every other financial institute with its financial services (e.g. payment and settlement services), that wants to act in this way and in legal ways, which means

In relation to those illegal digital and virtual currencies, specifically those illegal decentralized cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ether, we are thinking about an exchange scheme, which could be based on exchanging them into a digital or virtual currency allowed by our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank)

The alternative would be to reject all those illegal digital and virtual properties respectively effectively make them void, file lawsuits against all financial institutes that still handle those illegal properties, and ask the prosecutors for decisive actions. :)

{better wording required} We also added as default that the user accounts of our IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) with its rings of the management structure and the assigned ID spaces of the IDAMS can be connected with the user accounts of our OntoBank with its Fin spaces by a user.

Due dates

For defining the

more precisely, we have shown that Sun Microsystems Java Jini taken alone is neither Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) nor Service-Oriented Computing (SOC) and Service-Oriented Programming (SOP), but only when taken together with Motorola Openwings, which is based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) to a substantial extend, which again is one of the foundations of our OS.
Specifically the versions of the related Microsoft .NET Framework were released later as shown with their release dates:

Accordingly, the first due date would be the 1st of January 2002, but if convincing arguments are presented, then we could agree to the due date 1st of January 2007.

But decisive for us is the date of the creation of the subsidiary Amazon Web Services (AWS) of the company Amazon in August 2006, because the initial Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) service is neither server hosting nor grid computing anymore, but belongs to the fields of operating system-level virtualization or containerization respectively SOC and SOP (see once again the first sentence above), as a Service (aaS), and cloud computing.
This also suggests that the first due date would be the 1st of January 2007.

In any case, required is a file with a listing of all technologies, goods, and services of a company, that we can take as the basis for finding the relevant ones and getting a breakdown of our alleged contribution to its business activities.
Accordingly, we are considering the adjustments of the due dates, the admission fees, and the damage compensations as follows (see the issue #259 of the 17th of December 2019):

In addition, we are also considering the demand for a share of up to 100% of the earning or profit generated illegally depending on the specific performance and reproduction.

Ontoscope Further steps

For sure, we are also working on the release of the beta series of our newest head-worn Ontoscopes, also wrongly called smartglasses.

Depending on the status of agreements and takeovers to be made we suggest the following approach:

Contractors, component suppliers, and service providers will be selected jointly accordingly.

While the battery is a product of the Superbolt #4 Electric Storage System (ESS) of our Ontonics Blitz Fund I, our business units Ontoscope and iRaiment themselves are not. But Mixed Reality (MR) is the Superbolt #2 of our Blitz Fund I as well, and the Mediated Reality (MedR) technologies (systems, platforms, and environments) of the fields of Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR) (e.g. AR cloud, VR cloud, and MR cloud) are parts of the infrastructure and platforms of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

07.February.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We worked on the next generation of one of our electric energy storage technologies in pursuit of improving its efficiencies. But we are not sure if the chosen way of improvement really makes sense, because the actual generation is already highly optimized.

Interestingly, in the course of the design we came to a point where one of the other basic working principles, which is also the basic working principle of one of our other electric energy storage technologies, became more important than the primary basic working principle, but in a different appearance and execution in practice than in the case of said other electric energy storage technology.

08.February.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We were inspired by the basic working principle of a special device and adapted it for one of our other electric energy storage technologies, which is also interesting.

13.February.2020

14:04, 20:04, 22:24 UTC+1
SOPR #272

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
Topics
This issue is about legal matter in general and in particular:

Legal matter
Over the last two years, we have thought about many options to handle the overall situation and solve all problems, and presented the increasingly sophisticated results of our considerations to the public.
The pieces are coming together.

As we stated several times, societies, and also C.S. and our corporation cannot tolerate and even honor fraudulent activities and so on, but have to demand law and order. Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) provides this legal order with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM).

Due dates
We consider the due dates and damage compensations, as suggested in the issue #271 of the 6th of February 2020, as set.
Basically, we shifted the periods

and added another damage compensation to the period

The due dates and damage compensations are only related to the

We also thought about our suggestions or provision of the

and draw the conclusion that they are the right measures (see the beginning of this section once again).

Infrastructure
Indeed, there is a fine line between the various as a Service (aaS) models.
Mediated Reality (MedR) technologies (systems, platforms, and environments) of the fields of Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR) (e.g. AR cloud, VR cloud, and MR cloud), carrier cloud, Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), including Technology as a Service (TaaS), including Platform as a Service (PaaS), etc., or being more precise, specific parts of our ON, OW, and OV

For sure, members must be able to operate their businesses. But they should not operate other businesses or even the business that is kept under the power of control of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically the infrastructure of our SOPR, including

The alternative would be to increase the royalties for IaaS, TaaS, PaaS, and so on by 100% or more. But as long as

But we made clear in the last past that we do not have an interest in this alternative anymore. The only exception to the general provision included in the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR is made in relation to national security, but we also said that the establishment of a joint venture between public and federal institutes and authorities, and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as one group of joint partners and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation as other group of joint partners is required in such an exceptional case.

Correspondingly,

• Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), specifically
  • Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) or telecommunications companies (telcos or telecoms), and
  • Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
• Web Service Providers (WSPs), and
• Cloud Service Providers (CSPs our ClSPs).

have two options: Either they

in accordance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR.

Use cases, specifically business processes, should be in compliance with the (standardized) design elements (e.g. models, frameworks, etc.) based on our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and given by our SOPR, if provided.

We know why a Cloud Service Provider (CSP our ClSP) wanted to attend a Mobile Telecommunications Service Provider (MTSP) conference once again, but the combination or integration of telco or carrier cloud, edge, and fog with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) is definitely beyond the scope of what we are willing to license.

For sure, this is a business process of Communication Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), but to provide the related aaS is the business of our SOPR and not Amazon's, Ericsson's, or whosoever, who by the way made offers to their customers, like for example allowing them to keep control over their customer data to localization requirements, that we are not accepting without amendments, specifically in our

Howsoever, we made our decision in regard with IaaS, TaaS, and (utility) PaaS, as well as the various platforms of our ON, OW, and OV, also wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) systems and platforms.

Further steps
The only remaining problems are the

But with the common media solving these problems should not be a problem at all.

16.February.2020

16:17 and 18:52 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We have added some more companies on our list of (potential) takeovers respectively companies in which we seek to control voting rights.

In relation to our business unit Style of Speed (SoS) and its aerospace production and manufacturing facilities we are considering two general options:

(see also the Further steps of the 22nd of September 2019).

The goverment of the U.S.A. as well as members of its clique demand an engagement in the U.S.A., as other major economies wish to see in their countries as well.
Indeed, our favourit for a takeover of and existing aerospace manufacturer is The Boeing Company, after the related parts of the subsidiary Bombardier Aviation were sold to the other aerospace manufacturer Airbus and other companies of this industrial sector. But Boeing is a little expensive in comparison to our alternatives. Our second favourit is the aerospace manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corporation.

The governments of the French Republic (F.R.) and F.R.Germany (F.R.G), and also the European Commission (EC), as well as members of their cliques are demanding to enter an agreement with the manufacturer Airbus. In addition, Airbus signaled interest in a collaboration in the last past. This depends on the takeovers of Volkswagen, companies in F.R., and other aspects that show a willingless of all parties concerned. But it would definitely be a joint venture with Airbus kept under the power of control of our corporation.

The aerospace manufacturers United Technologies Corporation (including Pratt & Whitney) and Raytheon, Northrop Grunman, Leonardo, Thales Group, and BAE Systems, and also Space Exploration Technologies and Blue Origin as well as are manufacturers from the P.R.China (P.R.C.) and the Russian Federation (R.F.) are interesting alternatives, as we also mentioned in the past.

Other companies on the list are existing suppliers, specifically the companies Spirit AeroSystems, Rolls-Royce Holdings, followed by GE Aviation, and Safran, and some more suppliers of this industrial sector located in the U.S.A., F.R., U.K., and elsewhere.

An exchange of shares of a takeover company into shares of our Superunicorns and Superbolts, specifically those Superunicorns and Superbolts directly connected with our endeavours in the field of aerospace, is always possible.

17.February.2020

Clarification

Of course, we followed closely the development of the movie titled "Blade Runner 2049" of the year 2017, which is the sequel to the movie titled "Blade Runner" of the year 1982, and were very sure all the time that it is based on the works of art created by C.S..
But we have not watched Blade Runner 2049 in the cinema, in the television, or elsewhere, and only read a brief summary of the plot some few months ago.

But while watching the movie now, it direclty made click, when the replicant Sapper Morton says: "They have never seen a miracle." Said miracle

And that was also the moment, when we understood the before absolutely unexpectable: Like many other novels, movies, and other works of art Blade Runner 2049 is also based on C.S.' works of art titled

We can also see this

But there is something else: The baby sock.

Now, we are wondering how long they did observe C.S. before the year 1998.

18.February.2020

01:05 and 16:55 UTC+1
Investigations::Multimedia and Avionics

*** Work in progress - case of Airbus not ready ***
Bell
After the aircraft manufacturer presented essential parts of the original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. as own achievements, it thought to be clever (not really) with infringing the rights of C.S. and our corporation again and increase the related damages even more. We quote a report of a magazine specialized on :
"At [a] Consumer Electronics [exhibition ...] Bell demonstrated a model-sized cityscape with scale flying versions of its [...] passenger air taxi and Autonomous Pod Transport (APT) operating with Bell's AerOS urban air mobility operating system.
Calling it a "smart city ecosystem," Bell president and CEO Mitch Snyder explained, "This year, we're demonstrating what governing, operating, working, and living in a smart city will look like."
Bell's service is powered by Bell AerOS, a proprietary system running on [a Platform as a Service (PaaS) of a Cloud Service Provider (CSP or ClSP)] created to manage fleet information, observe aircraft health, and manage throughput of goods, products and predictive data and maintenance. This digital infrastructure is prevalent in Bell's Smart City vision at the show and serves the company's goal of providing Mobility as a Service (MaaS).
[...]
[...] the smart city demo included tablet stations where visitors could interact with AerOS, choosing departure and destination, and then watching in real-time how the flying models interacted. The AerOS software constantly assesses demand across the scale-size city and deploys vehicles accordingly, while also taking into account problems that inevitably come up during passenger and cargo flying operations, such as weather events that might require all vehicles to land immediately. AerOS uses goal-seeking optimization algorithms and artificial intelligence to anticipate passenger behavior and desires as determined from the booking engine and the vehicle's needs for battery recharging to meet the flight schedule. "We are working on modeling [and] simulation tools now. We need to do better than have a good model, but we have tools in-process to refine and update that without an army of PhD data scientists. This solves the digital backbone need of aerial mobility.""

We also quote a second report publicated by the same magazine: "Bell, Japan Airlines and Sumitomo Corp. to explore on-demand air mobility services in Japan. The partnership [...] plans to address air mobility studies as well as the required infrastructure and regulatory environment."

First of all, we would like to make clear that the presented illegal demonstration is not based on a proprietary (Urban Air Mobility (UAM)) operating system and is not a Mobility as a Service (MaaS), but a Platform as a Service (PaaS) due to the facts that it has a related smart city ecosystem and is not an individual platform for its own business activities, but also for the (business) activities of other entities.

Obviously, said demonstration is based on our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
Furthermore, essential parts of the Superstructure of our Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), which is a part of the infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), have been copied illegally and presented as an own vision and innovation, which is also illegal, besides the illegal activities of harming freedom of choice, innovation, and competition in this way.
The Superstructure is a part of the infrastructure of our SOPR, which again is kept under the power of control of our SOPR and managed and operated by our SOPR exclusively, but open for members of our SOPR, like Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Technology as a Service (TaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Service as a Service (SaaS). This case proves once again why this restriction of allowance for IaaS, TaaS, PaaS, and SaaS was required by our SOPR.
In addition, the related works of art titled Hovercity and Hoverland, and created by C.S. have been copied in this way.
Moreover, our SOPR has been copied even more, specifically its Ontologic Economic System (OES).

Some of these business activities of other entities include the proposed on-demand air mobility services in Japan or elsewhere, which will never lift off on the basis of Bell's

As can be seen by the confuse repetition and editing of contents publicated by us, the true goal of Bell is not to present own works, but to

Last but not least, the collaboration with the Cloud Service Provider (CSP or ClSP) could be viewed as an act of conspiracy to infringe the rights of C.S. and our corporation even more.

Because Bell is not the only company (see the case of the company Airbus below), that still thinks it is above the law or might even have a chance to get away with its illegal activities, we will take up the subject matter in the issue SOPR #273 of today.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Airbus and Singapore
The company and the state continued with its activities in the field of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) system and Urban Air Mobility (UAM) services (see also the case of Airbus in the Investigations::Multimedia and Avionics of the 23rd of November 2019). We quote a report of a magazine specialized on :
"Singapore to Develop Aerial Mobility Service with Airbus
Singapore and Airbus have secured a deal to lay the foundations for potential services with both passenger and larger cargo carrying air vehicles throughout Singapore. The island-nation-state's plan to improve regional connectivity builds on an earlier agreement established in 2016 between Airbus and Singapore's Civil Aviation Authority (CAAS) for proof-of-concept trials of a cargo-carrying Skyways unmanned air system.
Under the memorandum of understanding, Airbus and CAAS will develop an unmanned traffic management (UTM) system to support the early phase of the air mobility service. The two will also collaborate on developing a framework for safety and operating standards as well as study issues such as public acceptance. The framework will be based upon many of the learnings that have come out of Airbus's Skyway program, which studied the ability to pre-program safe aerial routes for autonomous drones to execute short-range parcel deliveries.
According to Jean-Brice Dumont, executive vice president of engineering for Airbus, "Skyways was a laboratory for UAM at a smaller scale. Now we need to go the extra mile, so with this agreement we are doing that. There are still questions of the business case and technology. In terms of business, we can see an appetite in the market, even though it's a niche right now for more emergency needs where time is of the essence or where its value-added, like shore-to-ship deliveries."
Technology studies will focus on traffic management as well as "the overall system, guarantees, performance, safety and cost," says Dumont. "We are flying with a couple of vehicles and in that sense, we are already there. But when you are flying with 20 or 100 vehicles at the same time along given routes then you are defining a system and that's what we are doing with UTM." The vehicles that Airbus plans to implement in this program will likely be similar to what has already been developed and tested by the manufacturer. Just last month, the CityAirbus made its first untethered flight in Donauwörth, Germany, and the Vahana wrapped up its flight testing Pendleton Airport in Oregon.
This memorandum of understanding between Singapore and Airbus mirrors a similar agreement between Bell, Japan Airlines and Sumitomo Corp. to explore on-demand air mobility services in Japan. The partnership was announced just days prior, and centers on the use of the recently unveiled Nexus 4EX eVTOL, which plans to address air mobility studies as well as the required infrastructure and regulatory environment."

Indeed, it is a continuation of the old and already failed strategy of the company Airbus and collaborating entities with statements slightly reduced in their damaging effect.
Therefore, it is needless to recall, that the related activities, specifically the development and operation of the UASUTM system and the UAM services this is still based on our OS and because the OS belongs C.S. and is kept under the power of control of our managing and collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and is licensed by SOPR, there is no need to discuss that issue once again.

Because Airbus is not the only company (see the case of the company Bell above), that still thinks it is above the law or might even have a chance to get away with its illegal activities, we will take up the subject matter in the issue SOPR #273 of today.
Specfically interesting to note here is the fact that it is the same UTM system that is operated by a joint venture of the Communications Service Provider (CSP) Deutsche Telekom with the Deutsche Flugsicherung==German Air Traffic Control, and the government of the F.R.Germany holds shares of both companies and operates the Deutsche Flugsicherung through its Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure.

18:19 UTC+1
SOPR #273

*** Work in progress - better wording, some links might be missing ***
Topics
This issue is about :

Legal matter
The best at first, we are considering to lift the bans for companies due to the latest revision of legal matter with significant effects. Some companies understood the advantages, the others will learn the advantages of law and order in individual face-to-face debates with judges and market regulators.

Advertising
Advertising blocking or ad filtering are not allowed in our

In fact, we have at least 3 elements

which all

• subsystems,
• platforms,
  • advertisement platform,

  and

• services,
  • marketing
    • advertising,

(see the issues #221 of the 20th of August 2019 and #226 of the 1st of September 2019) and

depending on the ring and assigned ID space with or without anonymity of end users

provisions that

Infrastructure
Again, the subject of traffic management became a matter of discussion (see also the issue #254 of the 28th of November 2019).

We have here some patterns in relation to aircraft manufacturers and service providers, and also governments.
Manufacturers need

but they are all based on our Ontologic System (OS) and its Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and OAOS, ON, OW, and OV, as well as other related works of art created by C.S. in the fields of CPS, IoT, and NES, like for example Smart Urban System (SUS) and smart city, specifically the infrastructure of our SOPR, the Superstructure of our Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM), and the Hoverland and Hovercity projects.
Governments, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and large companies

but politics are not allowed in our SOPR and they already failed with their attempts conducted in the last years.

We reacted accordingly with

... the rest of our huge arsenal of legal countermeasures, so that such unwanted and even criminal activities will never work in a legal way for guranteeing freedom of choice, innovation, and competition for the public good and other benefit for the public.

We have multiple options to prevent unwanted and unauthorised activities in accordance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR by

• Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), specifically
  • Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) or telecommunications companies (telcos or telecoms), and
  • Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
• Web Service Providers (WSPs), and
• Cloud Service Providers (CSPs our ClSPs),

Have we forgotten one?

20.February.2020

00:19 and 12:42 UTC+1
SOPR #274

*** Work in progress - better wording, translation into precise consensus ***
Topic
This issue is about:

Signal and data rights
In the issues #243 of the 3rd of November 2019 and #245 of the 7th of November 2019 we already made some statements about this matter in relation to health records or patient records.

Because the European Commission (EC) took the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) as source of inspiration and even as blueprint by copying some essential parts of them, there

"I want a digital Europe that reflects the best of Europe: open, fair, diverse, democratic and self-confident," as the European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated it.
And we want an opening of our Ontologic System (OS) under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions, but not completely for free and open, as our SOPR stated it.

First of all, we would like to emphasize that without the understanding of digital property and digital estate, there is no (related) digital economy. This point is important, because we got the impression that here is a huge deficit in the mind set of decision makers, specifically policymakers and lawmakers.
Furthermore, the governments of the nations French Republic (F.R.) and F.R.Germany (F.R.G.), and also the European Commision (EC) of the European Union (EU) wished that we establish a data market besides other technologies, goods, and services, which are based on for example the blockchain technique and also the fields of SoftBionics (SB) (AI, ML, CV, CAS, and so on), CPS, IoT, and NES (e.g. Smart Urban System (SUS), Industry 4.0 and 5.0), Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS), and Mixed Reality (MR) (e.g. AR and VR), as part of an overall economy. But as more as it becomes obvious that the sensing, monitoring, gathering, processing or transforming, and managing of signals and data are done by utilizing our properties in (the legal scope of) our properties, specifically with our OS in (the legal scope of) our OS as more signals and data are declared as free for everybody by their governments.
For sure, the problem is that there are much signals and data, information, and so on, which are covered by the legal scope of our OS.

The EC suggests that for areas, such as the transport sector, the health system, and the climate protection, separate data pools are to be created, in which companies, administrations, and scientists can freely exchange their data.
We provisioned that members of our SOPR must share some data for the benefit of the public, which are still traded exclusively on the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of our SOPR. The latter implies that using the data pool is unrestricted in the sense that it is open for all entities interested and concerned. But the signals, data, informations, knowledge, and algorithms are not (always completely) for free and open.

U.S.American companies, such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google, face severe conditions in the future. For example, they could be forced to share their data. There are special considerations for dominant market participants, said the EU Competition Commissioner.
As the EC is not allowed to expropriate the personal data of a user respectively a citizen, the EC has no rights to expropriate a digital property, specifically our digital property in the legal scope of our OS, without a compulsary compensation. Taking and sharing the signals and data is not allowed with just a regulation by a comission or a government, if it is legal at all. But with our AoA and ToS we get the benefit for the public.

Eventually, there must be someone, who pays for the use of our property right.
In the last months, we already discussed all relevant matter coming from all directions and points of view and also showed that we own digital property and we own quite a lot of all digital property, specifically in (the legal scope of) our OS (see the issues ... of the ... and ... of ...).

The main point is that the decision to provide signals and data for free can be decided by the owner of said signals and data, that is C.S. and our corporation, or a licensee and member of our SOPR in most of the cases, but not to make our royalty on the signals and data void.

But still curious for us is that the EC has not contacted us and talked with us about this matter face-to-face.

Please no panic, no race, no turf war, etc. in Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia. We already are on the way to lift the civilization on the next level.

29.February.2020

01:31, 03:11, 11:13, and 25:14 UTC+1
SOPR #275

*** Work in progress - better wording, some links might be missing ***
Topics
This issue continues the discussion about:

Signal and data rights
At first, note the differences between

In the issue #274 of the 20th of February 2020 we discussed the basic case of the European Commission (EC).
We are continuing to learn the handling (e.g. sensing, monitoring, gathering, processing or transforming, sharing, trading, utilizing, and managing) of our digital property (e.g. signals, data, informations, knowledge, and algorithms), which became effective only some few months ago with the latest revisions of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
In this issue we continue the discussion of two related basic cases of

States and union of states
In May 2018, the FCC said it was investigating reports that a website flaw could have allowed the tracking of the location of mobile phone customers. That probe expanded into other uses of consumers' location data by third-party firms.
Last year, lawmakers have expressed their outrage after getting the insight that aggregators were able to buy user data from U.S.American Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), or being more precise, wireless carriers and sell location-based services to a wide variety of companies and others. In fact, wireless carriers have allowed the use of location-data in fields like for example

but they were also selling the location information to shady middlemen.
Accordingly, the FCC proposes to fine 4 major wireless carriers more than 200 million USD for failing to protect the location informations of their customers.
In January 2019, a trade group representing U.S.American wireless carriers said that "upon hearing allegations of misuse of the data, carriers quickly investigated, suspended access to the data and subsequently terminated those programs."
One CSP said that it acted swiftly after it learned its location aggregator program was being abused by bad actor third parties.
The FCC said CSPs, specifically Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) or carriers, relied on contract-based assurances that other service providers would obtain consent from the customers of the CSPs before accessing location data, that are Personally Indentifiable Informations (PIIs).

Universities and other research institutes
Scientists at two universities in the U.K. aim to spot abusers from images of their hands. They plan to train computers to spot anatomical features in anonymous images sent by the public and are now calling for more than 5,000 citizen scientists to take part in their study, so there is enough data to prove beyond reasonable doubt whether our hands are unique.
This will allow SoftBionic (SB) algorithms to be designed that will help police to link suspects to crimes just from images of their hands.
A web-based app for anyone aged 18 and over to contribute their images to the project is available to use on smartphones at a WWW address of one of the universities.
The images are not shared with any external agencies and will be destroyed at the end of the five-year research project, funded through a 2.5 million Euro grant from the European Research Council.
One participating scientiest said: "The tools we will develop will reliably and robustly inform decisions in criminal courts. They could also be used to assist law enforcement agencies to rapidly and autonomously analyse hours of footage and thousands of offensive images."

The common term is Web Service (WS), but not web(-based) app(lication), though we called them Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) to

Correspondingly, in this context of a web app(lication) the term web does not refer to the World Wide Web (WWW), but to our Ontologic Web (OW).
Furthermore, a camera with a mobile communication function is not utilized in relation to a WS, but a mobile phone with a camera is utilized in relation to a performance of our OAOS, which allows to make the implication that the utilized mobile device is characterized as a (handheld) Ontoscope (Os).

If an end user or member of our SOPR is a citizen scientist or an ordinary scientiest is not relevant at all, because the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR does not differentiate in this way. We have private end users and professional end users, here at federal institutes.

Using all these terms makes only sense if there is something that should be circumvented: Scientist use a mobile camera and a web service to create an algorithm on the basis of data that belong to the end users and the scientiest to suggest it would be legal and for free. But in reality they are using an Ontoscope (OS) together with the Ontologic Web (OW) and OAOS to develop an algorithm on the basis of our digital property, which in general is regulated by us and not for free.
It is even irrelevant who provides a digital property, because with our OS in (the legal scope of) our OS the AoA and the ToS with the LM ofour SOPR become effective.

Somehow, we got the impression here once again that the EC and other entities are attempting to either

In accordance with the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR:

• personal signals and data respectively Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), or
• non-personal signals and data respectively anonymized informations.

Indeed, a provision in the AoA and the ToS demand that SOPR members give the allowance to use specific signals and data, and also PIIs under specific terms and conditions (e.g. for free) for the benefit of the public. But we have not definied the related details how signals and data, and information are selected and who does this, but we can already make the obvious statement that this is also payed by us eventually, because said property is off the MfE.
In this relation, the EC used the term data hub (see the issue #274 of the 20th of February 2020 above).

Note that despite we have unrestricted access to the raw signals and data (e.g. of service providers) our SOPR does not sell or share them, but only use them internally for the benefit of all members of our SOPR respectively the public, and without abusing its extraordinary position, specifically without gaining any economic advantage. In fact, a large extend of these specific signals and data even are used only in the

which is also the reason why the OS core is executed in the 1st ring and only monitored, but not useable like a common database.
Nevertheless, we can use the system core and the administration core as a Question Answering (QA) system, for sure, but only in the limits of laws, acts, and regulations, as well as agreements being effective and integrated as rules of the OntoBot (OB) component.
Correspondingly, a PII can be retrieved only in the limits of laws, acts, and regulations, as well as agreements concerning data privacy and digital rights, for example by authorized

and such core activities are logged in a digital ledger as well.

A PII is particularly protected by laws, acts, and regulations, as well as agreements concerning data privacy and digital rights, and a person holds the exclusive personal signals and data right or PII right. But we hold the right for our Ontologic System (OS), while other entities hold other rights. So there must be and eventually will be a compromise.

License Model (LM)
A question, that most potentially the majority of our members is interested in, is about the pricing of digital property, specifically personal signals and data respectively Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs).
From a study of how people in various countries value their PII we gained the following insight:

In particular, F.R.German users of Facebook would want the social media platform to pay them about 8 USD per month for sharing their contact information, while U.S.American users would only seek 3.50 USD per month.
In general, people across the board place the highest value on

and the least value on

On average, a platform would have to pay consumers a monthly

The study also found that Latin American consumers have a preference for seeing advertisements on their smartphone, while F.R.German and U.S.American consumers do not want this.

We are not sure how the authors of this study came to this pricing, but according to common sense law the pricing has to be the customary market price or the street value. Fantasy prices or moon prices are not legal.
Our central MfE is the place where the digital properties are traded and hence where the street value is determined according to the principle of supply and demand.

But our MfE also provides many more advantages. For example, there is no fraudulent actor in the middle anymore when trading PII, which has become a serious problem in the U.S.A. and elsewhere (see again the case of the FCC above). It also provides commissions and antitrust authorities a better foundation for the regulation of the markets and related matters.

If we continue with these considerations, then we can see that the

• already taxed and
• made at the location of the end user

on the basis of fees and shares for the various services provided by platforms, like for example

• communications,
• Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) respectively Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) Computing,
• applications and Everything as as Service (EaaS) respectively Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),
• social media,
• entertainment,
• MfE, specifically trading various goods provided by the end users (e.g. signals, data, information, knowledge, and algorithms),
• and so on,

For sure, this constitutes a paradigm shift

for some service providers, that prefered the free sharing for their business advantages.
But it is not a paradigm shift for the rest of the economies, because they work on this principles since ever.
Nevertheless, affected businesses will not experience a negative economic impact, if their services are truly better than the ones of the competitors.