 |
|
Home → News 2020 March
|
11.March.2020
Clarification
Copyright, the never ending story. We quote an online encyclopedia about substantial similarity: "[...]
Substantial similarity in copyright infringement
See also: Copyright infringement
To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1 ["§9". Patry on Copyright. 3 (September 2009 ed.)][3] Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered.[4]
Confusion arises because some courts use "substantial similarity" in two different contexts during a copyright infringement case.[5] In the first context, it refers to that level of similarity sufficient to prove that copying has occurred, once access has been demonstrated. In the second context, it is used after it has been shown that a defendant had copied to determine if what had been copied is legally actionable or amounts to misappropriation. Some courts use "striking" or "probative" instead of "substantial" to describe the level of similarity needed in the first context to avoid confusion.[1][...] The second meaning, which Justice Jon O. Newman referred to in 1997 as the more proper use, defines "the threshold for determining that the degree of similarity suffices to demonstrate actionable infringement" exists, "after the fact of copying has been established." [6]
Striking similarity
Direct evidence of actual copying by a defendant rarely exists, so plaintiffs must often resort to indirectly proving copying.[1][...] Typically, this is done by first showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through "coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source".[7] Some courts also use "probative similarity" to describe this standard. This inquiry is a question of fact determined by a jury.
Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:
1. Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
2. If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
3. The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
4. Fictitious entries placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent causes.
5. Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity.[1][...]
Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity, Arnstein v. Porter, the Second Circuit stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result."[8]
Misappropriation
Substantial similarity is the term used by all courts to describe, once copying has been established, the threshold where that copying wrongfully appropriates the plaintiff's protected expression. It is found when similarity between the copyrightable elements of two works rises above the de minimis exception, reaching a threshold that is "substantial" both qualitatively and quantitatively.[3][9] While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, substantial similarity has also been found where the portion copied was small but constituted the "heart" of the work.[10][11] In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either.[12][13] Only when a work rises to a level of "substantial similarity" does it infringe to the point of being legally actionable.[14] As there is no clear line on how much duplication is necessary to reach "substantial similarity", the question is determined on a case-by-case evaluation.[15] A showing that features of the two works are not similar does not bar a finding of substantial similarity, if such similarity as does exist clears the de minimis threshold.[3]
The substantial similarity standard is used for all kinds of copyrighted subject matter: books, photographs, plays, music, software, etc. It may also cross disciplines, as in Rogers v. Koons, where a sculptor was found to have infringed on a photograph.[1][...]
[...]
Tests
"A number of tests have been devised to determine substantial similarity. These may rely one or both of expert or lay observation and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.
Noted copyright authority Melville Nimmer[17] describes two different tests for substantial similarity, "fragmented literal similarity" and "comprehensive non-literal similarity", which have been widely adopted and utilized by U.S. courts.[3] Either test may result in a finding of infringement.[18] Fragmented literal similarity occurs when fragmented copyrightable elements are copied from a protected work in a manner not allowed by fair use. It is more limited than comprehensive copying, involving briefer elements such as a stanza of a song or an image.[19] Comprehensive non-literal similarity may occur even in the absence of verbatim duplication of copyrighted elements when [...] one work appropriates "the fundamental structure or pattern" of another.[3] Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Arica v. Palmer that a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar".[20]
The various other tests devised to determine substantial similarity can essentially be broken down into two categories: those that rely on the impressions of ordinary observers and those that rely on "dissection" by experts.[21] Some tests combine elements of both.[22] Ordinary observer tests rely on the subjective response that an ordinary person forms on comparing two works as to whether substantial similarity exists. These have been criticized as unreliable in that ordinary observers may not have enough familiarity with copyright concepts to recognize those elements not copyrightable, such as idea, and might also not recognize where superficial alterations fail to efface infringement.[23] By contrast, dissection tests seek infringement only in those specific copyrightable elements within a work.[21] The tester in these cases considers factors like the idea-expression divide and the scènes à faire doctrine.[21]"
Total concept and feel test
The total concept and feel test relies on the subjective evaluation of observers who consider the question of whether the total concept and feel of one work is substantially similar to another.
[...]
Pattern test
The pattern test [...] is primarily utilized to test fiction, comparing elements of plot and character between two works to see if substantial similarity exists.[27] The more similarities exist between the two, the more likely the court will determine infringement.
Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test
The primary test utilized in comparing computer programs, the "abstraction-filtration-comparison test" is also called more simply the "filtration test".[19][29] The test, which was devised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., compares the elements of software at increasing levels of abstraction, from machine instructions to program function, excluding those elements not copyrightable, such as those approaches dictated by efficiency or the fundamental operation of computers, to evaluate similarity.[19][29]
Inverse ratio rule
The inverse ratio rule test is an idea proposed in ["]Nimmer on Copyright["] that has been accepted by a few of the Circuit Courts, notably within the Ninth Circuit which deals with many of the cases of the entertainment industry since it covers California. The inverse ratio rule holds that the more an alleged infringer had access to a work, the lower the threshold for establishing substantial similarity. [...] Other Circuits have formally rejected the rule, and no case on the rule has been heard at the Supreme Court. [...]"
13.March.2020
19:50, 21:14, 23:12, and 27:12 UTC+1
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM
*** Work in progress - better epilog ***
Take a diagnostic tool [...] and add an app [...], and together you could find out if someone is infected and where.
[...]
Most of us meet countless people every day. Would it not be handy if you could simply ask your smartphone 'Have I had any recent contact with a Corona patient?'?
Exactly this could be possible in the future conveniently via app. Doctors at the Medical School [...] have developed this; experts from the company [...labs] the necessary diagnostic platform.
This is really a great idea, because the big challenge is to find out where CoViD-infected patients have been in the last 10 to 14 days and whether he or she has infected someone else; the incubation period. But who knows exactly where he or she has been in the last 14 days, where he or she has been shopping, drinking [a]n coffee, eating, or which train he or she got on or off. Basically nobody, much too complicated. But wait, the smartphone knows that, and it will know exactly as long as one has not really switched off all GPS functions. And it is precisely this data, namely the movement profiles, that we can make use of, by infected patients simply donating data to the public.
An infected patient uploads his or her movement profile securely encrypted and anonymized to a portal. The more people do that, the better. With the help of data-supported analysis, public authorities but also citizens can determine the risk of an infection, namely when non-infected people meet infected people.
The idea for that had [a scientist:] "And we finally started to do so at the end of the year 2019, because we were thinking about how modern analyses of geomapping can be used in medicine. Now the corona wave has overwhelmed us and we have finally focused on this problem in order to then develop not only a research platform, an analysis platform, but also an application, so that this tool can also be made available to the population to clarify the question 'Am I a potential contact patient?'."
Almost everyone has a service with GPS function at the start, such as [and online] Maps. So the smartphone knows the personal movement profile anyway and this can then be compared with the new [...] app with centrally stored movement profiles of infected persons. A traffic light then reveals no risk, a certain risk, or [gives the recommendation for action] must be tested absolutely.
This comparison takes place in the smartphone. This means that citizens are not surveilled and do not have to upload anything themselves. A convincing concept, very helpful whe used consequently, explains the physician: "Well, I believe that we can be much faster with the system than the previous interview procedures [...]. [...] this project also aims to take the opportunity to develop something like this not only in the current corona crisis, but also for future epidemics."
Users could even see in the app where they could be safe and where not. An enormous help that brings something to everyone.
The data analysis platform and app could be launched in April. The app itself is supposed to be free, but has to be financed somehow. That is why there is already a crowd-funding initiative.
[Journalist:] "Yes, the German government should strike, I think, with the project and support and also finance it, because the concept not only helps in the current situation with Corona, but would also help in similar situations in the future, even in waves of influenza.
Data protection is also very important, because all data are made anonymous. Apart from that, I think that in such a situation, data protection is allowed to take second place.""
First of all, that concept is neither new nor convincing at all.
Furthermore, nobody of them has developed anything, but merely implemented and customized, what C.S. has created and developed with the original and unique works of art titled
in the OntoLab, The Lab of Visions. Therefore, we have here no smartphone, but an Ontoscope. And now guess the next reason why we called it a scope as well.
Furthermore, the anonymized tracking data or movement profiles are already available from the Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs) and
such illegal applications are already developed since some years in relation to
on the basis of our Ontologic System Components (OSC) and our Ontoscope Components (OsC) (see also the issue SOPR #263 of the 2nd of January 2020).
But most important is the fact, that such projects, systems, platforms, apps, and services are not legal, because a
is not allowed within the limits of the
due to the reason that the raw signals and data, which are anonymized Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), do not belong only to the end users, but also to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
In addition, to get allowance to use our OS and our Os, an end user has to become a member of our SOPR and comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR.
An end user
In fact, a government cannot rent or lease, or buy such an app at all, because the foundations belong to C.S. and are exclusively licensed by our SOPR.
Furthermore, the governments wanted a data market and a (digital) tax, which both would not come into existence when giving raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, and algorithms away for free.
If a government, a company, or another qualified entity has the opinion that a problem, such as an epidemic crisis for example, can be solved by using these raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, and algorithms, then it simply can rent or lease, or buy a related
on our MfE, and also get
- SoftBionics,
- Autonomous Systems (ASs) and Robotic Systems (RSs),
- visualization,
- etc.,
from our SOPR, Ontonics, and business units of our corporation, that are payed with collected taxes or other sources of money.
Moreover, that specific platform
The latter also gives us the impression that a goal is still to get a part of the infrastructure and platforms of our SOPR under the power of control and operate it.
According to the AoA and the ToS with the LM of our SOPR, any OAOS, which do not comply with the AoA and the ToS with the LM, can be
The decision has already been made that the data alignment is done by our SOPR on the infrastructure of our SOPR. Such alternatives do not work, as seen with media companies and social media platforms.
That is not as safe and secure for freedom, democracy, and so on as it sounds and exactly what should not be done by another party than our SOPR, even not public and federal institutes and authorities, and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), which once again is the reason why our SOPR does it in the way it does it.
Somehow, this case is suspicious and seems to be fabricated for continuing with the infringements of the rights of C.S. and our corporation.
Howsoever, because
Also note the attempt of the reporter to confuse and mislead the public in relation to our OntoLab and that other [...]labs by also showing its logo, which is looking like O III and reflecting other themes of C.S. as well, like the Zero Ontology or 0-Ontology, O#, the 3³ Theme, and so on, that we view as an attempt to give the appearance of dissimilarity in relation to significant similarity in copyright infringement and therefore as an indicator to (see also the Clarification of the 11th of March 2020).
14.March.2020
Comment of the Day
Superbolt™
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #7
We noticed that we called the investment properties respectively spin-offs
We renamed the latter ones into only Superbolts to avoid any confusion.
Because the Blitz Fund II is manifesting, we have updated the headlines of the related issues accordingly by adding the related roman numerals.
Ontonics Blitz Fund II #2
We have added two new Superbolts to the Blitz Fund II, which are related to each other and might be split into several more Superbolts.
15.March.2020
Style of Speed Further steps
We would like to show a collage of two first quick doodles made in relation to the conventional private motor yacht designated as CS-1 and discussed in the Further steps of the 14th and 20th of January 2019.
©© BY 2.0 sanctumsolitude and used for collage by C.S.
© H2 Yacht Design, Lobanov Design, and Style of Speed
By the way, the cruise ship Disney Magic has the following specification:
which would not correspond with the final general characteristics of the CS-1, obviously, as also made clear in the last section of the King Smiley Further steps of the 4th of January 2020.
Due to the fact that we already have more than enough power on-board, we also came back to an overall concept for a special motor yacht for C.S., which is designated as CS-2 and classified as a Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effect craft or Ground-Effect Vehicle (GEV) (see the Further steps of the 14th and 20th of January 2019 once again).
But because the new designs of WIG effect crafts generate much lift forces and we also have our Hoverwing technology, we concluded once again somehow that the time is over for such types of vehicle and so we came back to our airyachts, like the Magic Carpet³ (see the Further steps of the 14th of February 2017, 13th of April 2017, and 16th of June 2017).
But this does not exclude hybrid variants that are able to float on water as well.
Maybe we build some vessels of these older types just for fun, nostalgic sentimentality, and love for historic vehicles.
17.March.2020
Ontoscope Further steps
The Ontoscope is ideally suited for medical devices as well. In fact, C.S. has created the Ontoscope for all kinds of utilization, including scientific, medical, robotic, and all the other fields of utilization.
In general, an Ontoscope (Os) is a part of the Ontologic System (OS), and therefore has
- Artificial Intelligence (AI),
- Machine Learning (ML),
- Computer Vision (CV),
- Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM),
- Cognitive Agent System (CAS),
- Cognitive Computing (CogC),
- Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP),
- Emotional Intelligence (EI),
- Multi-Agent System (MAS),
- Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC),
- Evolutionary Computing (EC),
- etc.
- statistical learning and analysis,
- data mining,
- Big Data Fusion (BDF),
- Big Data Processing (BDP), and
- Big Data Analytics (BDA),
even done on the basis of the integration of GCEFCS and SB, or correctly said on the basis of the Ontologic Net (ON) and the Ontologic Web (OW),
as well as different form factors, inclusive
In this way, one only needs to
- mechanical systems.
In relation to the utilization of our Os in the area of medicine we already
(see also the section Human Simulation/Holomer of the webpage Links to Software of the website of our OS variants OntoLix and OntoLinux), and
- hand(-held) ultrasound scanner and
- mobile micro chemistry laboratory as an alternative to our Lab-on-Chip solutions
But also ventilators or artificial respiration machines can be realized as peripheral systems and operated by using an Os as readymade building block to
- emergency ventilators,
- ventilators based on retrograde designs,
- simple ventilators based on designs of a manual breathing apparatus or resusciatator,
- ventilators based on designs of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) devices,
- components of scuba equipment, and
- components of vehicles,
- pressurized bottles filled with air and supplied with a control gauge,
- small electric motors from e.g. the automotive industry (e.g. wiper motor),
- small pumps from e.g. the automotive industry (e.g. one or two (truck) wiper water pumps), or
- venitlators from e.g. the automotive industry (e.g. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)),
and
Even better, different single devices can be connected to a distributed system through an Ontoscope as part of a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) for example.
So only our OntoLab's rocket science taken and ready it is. :D
18.March.2020
Style of Speed Further steps
We are preparing the conversion of 400 aircrafts of the model 737 Max of the manufacturer Boeing into
for the case of
for our related subsidiary, which is the Superbolt #6 of the Ontonics Blitz Fund I by the way.
In addition, we have started the production phase for our new type of satellite that expands our Superstructure kept under the power of control and operated by our managing and collecting Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM) and extends our other activities with much more capabilities.
King Smiley Further steps
Palazzo Farnese for C.S. - Palazzo Sacchetti for F.R.
That would be nice. Is not it? :D
But we guess that the one palace is not available for C.S., because it is owned by the state, and the other palace is too small for the embassy of the French Republic. Therefore, we are already working on alternatives in the eternal city of Roma.
By the way: Both palazzi were designed by Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane. The Palazzo Sacchetti is even the initial Palazzo da Sangallo.
19.March.2020
21:43 and 23:03 UTC+1
SOPR #276
*** Work in progress - better order and wording, less redundancy ***
Topics
In this issue we discuss the following topics:
Digital rights [Social and Societal]
In the last week we observed at least 4 activities to provide an Information System (IS) or platform with a related application (see the issue #263 of the 2nd of January 2020), which use the mobile device data to control the observance of a quarantine and the movement profile of infected persons. In detail
For the same reason, 7 European mobile CSPs
All these activities are based on our
- Ontologic System Components (OSC),
- Ontoscope Components (OsC), and
- Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Systems (OAOS),
- tracking data or movement profiles gathered with mobile devices, specifically hand-held and wrist-worn Ontoscopes, also wrongly called mobile phone, smartphones, tablet, pad, and surface computers, and smartwatches, and
- patient data taken from health records of persons infected with a virus.
As we made clear in relation to similar activities (see once again the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 13th of March 2020), our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)
- IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS),
- Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),
- Social and Societal System (SSS),
- medicine system, including our Medicine 4.0 and 5.0 system,
- healthcare system, including our Healthcare 4.0 and 5.0,
- Electronic Commerce System (ECS), including Marketplace for Everything System (MfES),
- and so on (see for example the issue #168 of the 28th of February 2019),
- our SOPR alone or
- joint ventures established by 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, in case that the first possibility is not possible for legal reasons,
but
In general, establishing joint ventures are not required if no Personal Indentifiable Informations (PIIs) are involved, because public and federal institutes and authorities, and SOEs can rent or lease, or buy related signals and data, informations, knowledge, algorithms, and so on on the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of our SOPR.
But even if PIIs are involved, then establishing joint ventures or even diluting, weakening, or decreasing our competences is not required in virtually all of the cases, because the SOPR is allowed to handle PIIs as long as it complies with the related laws, acts, and regulations, as well as agreements.
As we made clear with similar activities on the 14th of March 2020 our SOPR will not act against temporary platforms, as long as related services are not provided by our SOPR or a very special, unexpected, exceptional situation requires that.
But when temporary platforms, applications, and services run for solving a problem related to a special, unexpected, exeptional situation, like a viral epidemic, are meant to
then we will take action in compliance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR.
Or said in other words, when a special, unexpected, exceptional situation is not given anymore, or our SOPR has added a related platform, application, and service, then said platforms, applications, and services go away once again or they and the anonymized raw signals and data are transfered to the SOPR and can still be leased, bought, or sold on the Marketplace for Everyhting (MfE) of the SOPR.
Another advantage of our SOPR with its infrastructure, platforms, Marketplace for Everything (MfE), and so on is, that only we have a central system and even a legal system, that manages and controls this as well, as well already showed with illegal handling of PIIs (see the issue #275 of the 29th of February 2020).
In this regard, we can only remind:
Therefore, there will be no a renegotiation of the terms and conditions, and also regulations or provisions of our SOPR.
Virtually, everything has been solved perfectly. One simply has to stick to a found compromise.
Media Platform
Over more than 2 decades, we have investigated the strategies, methods, and publications of the unregulated, free press and were able to prove that it is a serious problem for all modern societies.
Even better, the original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System, also titled OS, was also created by C.S. to discuss a society that enjoys the priceless luxury of not being manipulated by the lying press and fake news providers, as well as the dictatorship of stupidity and hate, as already noted on the 12th of March 2020.
And we have the artistical, moral, and legal rights to keep those unwanted media out of the
or however one wants to call it, including technologies, goods, and services based on our OS, such as for example
Therefore, the SOPR manages and operates an own media platform, and to
despite that our work of art is unaffected of both, we have expanded the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR with the provision that no opinion is publicated without a
within the limits of the
to provide information sanity to all other members of our SOPR as well.
Those rogue media, including social media platforms, can continue with their very disgusting behaviour in the old Internet and old World Wide Web (WWW) respectively in the 1st to 4th rings and the assigned ID spaces of the management structure of our ON, OW, and OW only, but without our OS. Nix Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) based on our OS, inclusive operating systems, data centers, Business Intelligence (BI), Visualization, and Analytics (BIVA), and Data Science and Analytics (DSA), and so on, or collaborations with those unregulated media.
License Model (LM)
Because it becomes more and more obvious that C.S. has not only created a New Reality (NR) but also saved large parts of the world once again with the creation of the original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System, also titled as OS, as proven with for example
- based on SoftBionics (SB),
- equipped with a brain of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
- utilized for simulation, Evolutionary Computing (EC), Simulated Annealing (SA), and so on,
- including Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing System (GCEFCS),
as part of the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV),
- statistical learning and analysis,
- data mining,
- Big Data Fusion (BDF),
- Big Data Processing (BDP), and
- Big Data Analytics (BDA),
even done on the basis of the integration of GCEFCS and SB, or correctly said on the basis of the ON and OW
obviously based on our
we have the opinion that it is more than fair and reasonable to set the fees to the state of mid 2019(?) back again, that would be 7% with all discounts for the ICT industrial sector.
23.March.2020
Clarification
We are the good ones. :)
- The Proposal
- 5 Zusammenfassung==Summary and
- 8.2.3 Prinzip eines Virus==Principle of a Virus,
and
- A Prototype
- [7.19] 7.16 Compiler für DNA==Compiler for DNA and
- [7.21] 7.18 Compiler für mRNA==Compiler for mRNA,
and
24.March.2020
Ontonics Further steps
In addition to our other related works presented with the original and unique, iconic works of art titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), and in the Further steps of the 7th of November 2018, 16th of July 2019, and 13th of September 2019 (see also the related comment of yesterday), we have developed a
27.March.2020
Comment of the Day
"It is no vodoo, but just a virus.", [C.S., Today]
28.March.2020
09:27, 13:24, 13:46, 16:51, 18:53, and 22:06 UTC+1
SOPR #277
*** Work in progress - better wording ***
Topics
This is another issue of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), which summarizes opinions, comments, activities, etc. in relation to the following topics:
See the issue #276 of the 19th of March 2020 and the note Community demands trac(k)ing app and service of the 27th of March 2020, which could be based on algorithms used to map traffic flows or traffic jams and reused for tracking and tracing.
Legal matter
The special allowance or exemption permit was given with the note "[Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (]SOPR[)] will not act against temporary platforms" of the 14th of March 2020.
We looked at specific cases of the nations United Kingdom and F.R.Germany, that are mimicking our SOPR and implementing a part of the exlusive infrastructure of our SOPR without exemption permit, and asked ourselves if we would have
Howsoever, they have not consulted and asked us before, but instead
once again, which is effectively questioning the competences, and also damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of our SOPR, as well as the joint compromise, agreement, and deal once again.
That is not acceptable in any way.
Digital rights [Social and Societal]
Already yesterday we concluded that within the limits of the
only our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is legitimated to hold and handle all raw signals and data, informations, including Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), and so on as a whole, because the SOPR can process them internally and provide them in ways complying to privacy laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements on the basis of its original and unique OSystem core of the infrastructure.
Due to all legal reasons, SOPR is the only legitimated entity for PII tracking, and tracing or backtracking.
In addition to the states mentioned in the issue #276 of the 19th of March 2020 we got the information that other states are also doing so on the basis of our Ontologic System, specifically its related basic properties and components, access places, and access devices (e.g. Ontoscope):
In the meantime, some states had to take a step back:
Non of these states and special administrative regions has our allowance to use our OS in the way they do forever (see also the section Core principles of the issue #238 of the 18th of October 2019). The exemption permit lasts only until a vaccine is found or our SOPR provides a technology, good, or service.
Furthermore, all tasks and process of tracking, and tracing or backtracking, as well as integration and synchronization of raw signals and data, and informations can and will be done by our SOPR alone or in an exceptional case by a joint venture with a government eventually.
For sure, we (will) do tracking, and tracing or backtracking worldwide, at least as long as there are no better alternatives (e.g. testing, isolation, vaccine, and so on).
It has to be understood that this is a supplement to the other measures, but not a panacea. But in combination with broader testing it will reduce the reaction time drastically to around 15 to 30 minutes instead of days and weeks.
We are working out three last issues:
- flow of informations,
- processing in the OSystem core (1st ring) and administration core (2nd ring), and
- distributed ledger,
- movement profiles of groups can be exploited,
and
- stigmatization of infected persons and contact persons and
- exploitation of recovered persons with antibodies.
Maybe we do it a little more loosely coupled by showing only some kind of hot spots, safe zones, and so on.
Infrastructure
Before we could reach consensus as well as reestablish law and order on the use of PII for tracking, and tracing or backtracking the government of the U.K. and the U.S.A. rushed forward with Information Systems (ISs), that are subsystems of the infrastructure of our SOPR.
This is definitely not a loophole or even a dam break.
Media platform
We also made more considerations about additional provisions for SOPR members, that provide content to our media platform or media system and are not dedicated main contractors, suppliers, and providers of our SOPR:
We do not see here any obstruction of the so-called free press or freedom of speech and hence only legal provisions.
Besides this, one opposed to such regulations must answer the following question: Why would an entity of the free press damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, since more than 2 decades, but then sue us due to these regulations of the free press? Does not sound plausible. Is not it? :)
30.March.2020
11:50, 18:31, and 21:04 UTC+2
SOPR #278
*** Work in progress ***
Topics
We have some more insights and considerations:
Legal matter
If an end entity wants to use
then she or he or it has to comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our original and unique, exclusively managing and collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) respectively our original and unique, iconic OS, and therefore obviously the only single source of truth and trust.
We simply refer to the issue SOPR #35 of the 24th of October 2017.
Also note that this is only a sketch of the AoA and the ToS, which lacks some legal details and might not be correct in some details, specifically in relation to their revisions regarding our
But the latter has been discussed thoroughly in the last past as well and will be incorporated in their revised versions.
See also the section Digital rights [Social and Societal] of the issue SOPR #277 of the 28th of March 2020.
We recalled the rights and duties of a member of our SOPR and found out that the government of the F.R.Germany indeed took a part of the infrastructure of our SOPR and mimicked our SOPR with the activities of one of its federal institutes and many other convicted entities.
We already considered to withdraw the F.R.Germany the third discount, because the state has not stopped to damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR once again instead of supporting us, restoring the rights of C.S. and our corporation, and reestablish law and order.
In South Korea and Austria we have the same situation.
But most potentially, we have the same activities in the U.S.A., U.K., P.R.China, Russia, India, other member states of the European Union (EU), and elsewhere.
Acting in this way is as worse as nationalizing a part of the so-called press. Indeed, our OS should be protected by the constitutions like the so-called free press. We do not call our Social and Societal System (SSS) without any reason the fifth column of power, though it might be more correct to call our SOPR this way.
Transition process
Because entities are unable to recognize the immense advantages, that we are willing to provide with our compromise and related agreement, we would like to summarize and contrast the scenario when having no agreement versus the scenario when havig an out-of-court agreement as part of our monthly reminder for politicians, managers, scientists, and other persons concerned or interested.
No agreement
The common way is to
- granting no allowance or only individual allowance for the performance and reproduction and also modification of our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs),
- taking customary royalties that are 15 to 30% or more of the overall revenue generated with our AWs and IPs
As a result, affected companies could
Potentially, the stock markets could collapse once again respectively remains at the ground.
Out-of-court agreement
We assume that no entity concerned really want that this no agreement scenario will become a matter of reality. Therefore, we
demand
suggest
and pledge
We do not pay for the AWs and the IPs stolen from us or the financial effects (e.g. quantitative easing by the central banks, speculation at the stock markets), therefore we have corrected the estimated enterprise value or the market capitalization to 30% {or was it 50%?} respectively the estimated enterprise value or the market capitalization on the 1st of January 2015 in most cases of affected companies.
The return or takeover price would be financed and payed by
An important element in relation to said returns and takeovers is our so-called fluent transition process:
No interference by the governments and market regulators is required, because we are only reestablishing law and order, restoring our rights, advantages, and momenta, and taking back our properties.
31.March.2020
16:28 UTC+2
Ontoscope Further steps
In the Further steps of the 17th of March 2020 we noted once again that "[t]he Ontoscope is ideally suited for medical devices as well. In fact, C.S. has created the Ontoscope for all kinds of utilization, including scientific, medical, robotic, and all the other fields of utilization."
We also recalled some examples for the utilization of our Os in the area of medicine and referenced projects in the Innovation-Pipeline of Ontonics and the issue OntoLab Doctor's Bag #1 of the 20th of September 2014.
But also (Real-Time (RT)) Polymerase Chain Reaction (PRC) systems can be realized as peripheral systems and operated by using an Os or Ontoscope Components (OsC) as readymade building blocks to
which allows an exhaustive, nationwide testing eventually.
Even better, different single devices can be connected to a distributed system through an Ontoscope as part of a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) for example.
So only our OntoLab's rocket science taken and ready it is once again, too, and so on. :D