Legal matter
It does not take 20 years until a normal copyright lawsuit is enforced. Who is gonna claim that kind of total nonsense? On average that takes

• we would have to go through all legal instances, which we do not think will be required, because the fraud is just too crystal clear, or
• the courts have much to do.

The public prosecutor's offices also work faster (see for example Volkswagen Dieselgate). The products and services may be offered no longer relatively quickly.
At this point, we would like to give the information that the regulations concerning the damage compensations in the case of criminal actings prosecuted by the state differ from the damage compensations in the case of copright infringements pursued by C.S. and our corporation, specifically in relation to the limitation period. Howsoever, we demand a admission fee anyway, if the damage compensations do not cover the whole period of the infringements.

The ban of companies, like Apple, Deutsche Telekom, and SAP, would be next due to the related clauses included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
But that makes no sense anymore, because we got our answers from virtually every entity that is included in the list of the designated recipients of our planned inviting letter respectively letter of acknowledgement and intent. Honestly, we are not sure which company is still on said list.
So the AoA is only required to regulate the cyber sovereingty of states.
But we can estimate that this shortcut saves us around 2 months, so it is worth thinking about due to this reason as well.
Seems to be the right time to move further, less social and societal, and more commercial. Any other ideas, opinions, whatsoever how to proceed?

We make one of our monthly reminder for unteachable or unknowing entities:
We must not allow and make any modifications of our original and unique works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S., which are required for opening and licensing in ways, that are more compatible with social and societal, and economical demands.
Keep in mind that technologies, goods, and services have to be labelled in a way that an end user can read our label, like for example "Created and Designed by C******** M********* S********* in the Federal Republic of Germany", on the

Maybe we demand labelling anyway at least for the first year of licensing.

License Model (LM)
There are several possibilities to draft a License Model (LM). Here we only look at some aspects and options regarding the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector, but the same aspects and options also hold for the other licensee classes according to our graded LM.

• short business plan,
• count of end users (see for example a society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights),
• app and service cap: maximal 3 Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),
• revenue cap: maximal 33.333 billion U.S. Dollar or increased share of 15% of the revenue, if exceeding this cap,
• and so on,

• Infrastructue as a Service (IaaS),
• Technology as a Service (TaaS), including
  • System as a Service (SaaS or SysaaS), including
    • Operating system as a Service (OpsaaS),

    and

  • Platform as a Service (PaaS),

  and

• Service as a Service (SaaS or ServaaS),

Digital rights
Our digital rights, specifically digital property rights, are regulated separately in the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR.

02.May.2020

06:19 and 17:32 UTC+2
Investigations::Multimedia and Aviation and Aerospace

*** Work in progress - some few words missing ***
Alphabet, Softbank, China Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, Telefónica, Bharti Airtel Limited, Ericsson, Nokia, Airbus, Intelsat, and AeroVironment
The companies have established a highly suspicious and dubious alliance in the field of High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS), which is called correspondingly HAPS Alliance.
We quote a report of an aviation magazine, which is about that so-called HAPS Alliance and was publicated at the end of February 2020:
"A group of telecommunications, technology, aviation, and aerospace companies including Airbus Defense and Space and Softbank Corp., announced a new partnership called the HAPS Alliance, to promote the use of high altitude vehicles in the Earth's stratosphere with the goal of eliminating the digital divide. [SoftBank (95%) and AeroVironment (5%)→]HAPSMobile [(also has strategic relationship with Alphabet→Loon)], Loon, AeroVironment, [Airbus→]Airbus Defense and Space, Bharti Airtel Limited, China Telecom Corporation, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Intelsat, Nokia Corporation, SoftBank Corp., and Telefónica have all committed to joining the alliance, which was originally an initiative from HAPSMobile and Loon.
As part of the alliance, member companies plan to collectively advocate for High Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) business development, build a cooperative HAPS ecosystem, develop common product specifications, and promote the standardization of HAPS network interoperability. The alliance also plans to advocate for the adoption of a of global spectrum standardization for High Altitude [International Mobile Telecommunications (]IMT[)] Base Stations within the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and to influence emerging commercial standards, including 3GPP non-terrestrial networks.
The alliance said that HAPS are a promising solution to expand mobile coverage because they operate in the stratosphere, which is above ground infrastructure, but below satellites, allowing for near ubiquitous coverage that avoids ground clutter and significant latency issues.
Airbus Defense and Space CEO Dirk Hoke sees major potential for the use of HAPS technology in the future.
"HAPS systems fill a capability gap between satellites and [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (]UAVs[)], being complementary to each other as part of a constantly growing market. Working across industry to create a HAPS ecosystem is the next logical step in the evolution of the HAPS market. Having an aircraft which is flight proven is just the first step, having an ecosystem in which it can operate with common standards will bring us even closer to delivering HAPS services from the stratosphere to unlock potential around the world," Hoke said."

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subsidiary HAPSMobile: "HAPSMobile is a subsidiary of SoftBank planning to operate HAPS networks, with AeroVironment as a minority owner. HAPSMobile develops [a] solar-powered unmanned aircraft for stratospheric telecommunications, and has a strategic relationship with Loon LLC, a subsidiary of Google's parent Alphabet Inc.
[...]
On January 3, 2018, AeroVironment announced it will design and develop solar-powered high-altitude unmanned aircraft and ground control stations for a [j]oint [v]enture with Japanese telco SoftBank (95%) for $65 million.
[...]
The same day, SoftBank invested $125 million in Loon [...] developing high-altitude balloons for internet connectivity since 2011, which can make a similar investment in HAPSMobile. They can collaborate on common ground stations, communications payloads and can share network connectivity in flight. HAPSMobile could also use the Loon-developed fleet management system and software-defined network.[3]
[...]
[...]The [stratospheric UAV] cruises at 59 kn (110 km/h).
It would provide 4G LTE and 5G direct to devices over a 200 km (125 mi) diameter area, and 40 aircraft could cover the entire Japanese archipelago. It should be interoperable with terrestrial cell towers to expand their coverage and as a proxy for the SoftBank-backed OneWeb satellite constellation, not suited for providing links directly to devices.[3]"

For completness, we also quote and online encyclopedia about Satellite Internet Service Provider (SISP) OneWeb: "The OneWeb satellite constellation (formerly WorldVu) was a planned initial 650-satellite constellation that was in the process of being built out in 2019-2020, with a goal to provide global satellite Internet broadband services to people everywhere and was previously aiming to provide global services starting in 2021.
[...]
The small satellites were built by OneWeb Satellites, a joint venture between Airbus and OneWeb.[5] The satellites are operating in a circular low Earth orbit, at approximately 1,200 kilometers (750 mi) altitude,[6] transmitting and receiving in the Ku band of the radio frequency spectrum.[7]
[...]
In December 2016, SoftBank Group Corp agreed to invest $1 billion in OneWeb, thus becoming OneWeb's largest shareholder, with a roughly 40% stake. Another $200 million was funded at that time by its current investors, which include Qualcomm Inc, Airbus Group and Virgin Group. The transaction was expected to close in the first quarter of 2017.[34][8]
In February 2017, OneWeb announced that it had sold most of the communication capacity of its initial 648 satellites, and was considering nearly quadrupling the size of the satellite constellation by adding 1,972 additional satellites that it has priority spectrum license rights for.[8] With the original capital raise of $500 million in 2015, plus the $1 billion investment of SoftBank in 2016, previous "investors committed to an additional $200 million, bringing OneWeb's total capital raised to $1.7 billion."[8]
[...]
In February and March 2020, OneWeb completed two successful launches of 34 satellites into orbit on a Soyuz rocket from Baikonur, Kazakhstan.[3][4]
The entire network was ultimately meant to consist of 648 satellites,[40] but by mid-March 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic and market turmoil, OneWeb found themselves in a cash crunch. OneWeb and all its affiliates filed for bankruptcy on 27 March 2020, after experiencing difficulties raising capital to complete the build and deployment of the remaining 90 percent of the network.[41] The effect on the previously planned ten launches in 2020 was not publicly discussed,[42] but the company is maintaining its satellite operational capabilities while the company is restructured by the court, and new owners for the constellation are sought.[43]
[...]
Historically, earlier companies that have attempted to build satellite internet service networks and provide space-based internet connections have not fared well, as both services were hobbled by high costs which consequently attracted few users. Iridium SSC filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999 and Globalstar did the same in 2002.[14]"

For sure, companies can always establish alliances, when having common interests, but somehow they are always also agreements that harm competition, specifically when alliances do not create own technologies, goods, and service, but merely copy them from entities that are not members of the related alliances
Howsoever, everything is odd here due to our experiences with all members of that alliance and their other alliances.

By the way:

• parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), whereby ON and OW are also wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC), and
• fields of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), and operating system-level virtualization or containerization,

all based on our our Evoos and our OS (see also for example the Multi-Agent System (MAS) Java Agent Development Environment (JADE) and the JADE eXtension (JADEX)).

We do have at least the moral right, the copyright about an personal, individual and original, iconic expression and a related architecture of a specific system, and other rights beyond the copyright. But we also explained that the Superstructure is a part of the infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), which again are parts of our OS (see the Clarification or issue ... of the ...)].
Therefore, any interference with or any stealing of original and unique items of our Superunicorns and Superbolts, such as for example our

will end the business relationship with our corporation inclusive our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) due to the attempt to infring the rights of C.S. and our corporation in multiple ways, such as

and result in serious lawsuits at the prosecutors, as made very clear in the past.

Our managing and collection societies have been established to open and license our AWs and further IPs to everybody interested as part of a social and societal compromise, because expropriation is either legally impossible, because prohibited by constitutions and laws, or economically untainable and unsustainable, because too expensive and .

We are looking at all members of the so-called High-Altitude Platform Station Alliance (HAPS Alliance) all the time and are investing and documenting every action of them to build up even more legal matter in case they are still refusing to respect our rights.
But we are also recommend all the other related industrial sectors to internalize and heed this clear statement.

04.May.2020

08:08 and 8:48 UTC+2
SOPR #286

*** Sketching mode - some contents might be overworked or removed ***
Topics

Legal matter
In general,

Therefore, we

There is too much foul play in the markets and too many are just acting in unwanted ways, specifically the already very well known entities,

At first comes a lawsuit, then comes a suggestion for an out-of-court agreement by a judge.
We thought everybody would have an interest in taking the short path without going to the court. But instead, the bad actions have not stopped, do not stop, and will not stop according to the experience already made. But the stop of bad actions is one of the conditions in general and for collaborating in a harmonious way and also for reaching the Big Deal in particular.
Correspondingly, an out-of-court agreement has been rejected even before any direct communication (e.g. inviting letter, letter of acknowledgement and intent, or warning letter) took place. Therefore, we claim external entities have no rights on this basis anymore.

The Big Deal under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions proposed by SOPR has been rejected. Therefore, we claim that external entities have no right on expropriation anymore.
Our terms and conditions might be contested, but they already are FRANDAC.

Therefore, if bad actions do not calm down immediately and stop eventually, then we are not willing anymore to

Therefore, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies can begin to calculate with

or prepare for nothing by us and a special resort stay by the state. :)
All percent values With All Discounts Granted (WADG) if not said otherwise.

Damage compensations
And then comes the huge problem of triple damage compensations and related admission fees.

The additional damages to the moral integrity and oeuvre of C.S. are immense.

We summarize our considerations made about the damage compensations so far:

• other personal rights,
• competition law, and
• other rights and laws,

limitation period longer than 3 years in the cases of the infringements beyond the copyright infringement
In relation to the copyright infringement the triple damage compensations for the rest of the whole period has been substituted with an admission fee of the same height.
The due date 1st of January 2007 in all cases not limited by law.

License Model (LM)
We continued with the considerations about a new License Model (LM), but have not made a final decision if and when it might become effective.

A comparison between prior arts, and our works of art, integrations of others prior arts, and integrations of others prior arts with our artworks confirmed once again that for example a single reproduction of the combination and integration of a

• lifelog,
• 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), including Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Service as a Service (SaaS or SeraaS),
• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), and
• Data Science Analytics,

which are all based in whole or in significant part on our Evolutionary opperating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), is worth a royalty of the higher one of a fixed fee of 2.000 U.S. Dollar or Euro, or 10 to 15% of the sale revenue with all discounts granted by our SOPR.
For sure, in relation to other parts of our OS and their integrations, like for example platforms for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Technology as a Service (TaaS), including Platform as a Service (PaaS), higher fixed fees and relative shares as royalties are still considered to be Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC), because our works are not just only visions, ideas, concepts, systems, and so on, but personal, original and unique, iconic expressions or works of art, that are comprising descriptions, designs, and architectures of visions, ideas, concepts, systems, and so on. In fact, our Caliber/Calibre and our Ontologic uniVerse (OV) with our bidirectional bridge between reality and virtuality, including Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), and our unification of both to our New Reality (NR) in particular and our visions of the future in general are really priceless and not for sale.

In the following, we would like to compare some few but important aspects, that are relevant for drafting a new License Model (LM).
Pro aspects for 15% and 30%

• foundational standards and technologies, and
• New Reality (NR)

Contra aspects against 15% and 30%

• standard software applications provided on the basis of
  • as a Service (aaS) (capability) models and Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), and
  • Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC),
• online services,
• web services, and
• works not publicated by us, but stolen by espionage,

A pro aspect for 15% and 30% could be offset with one or more of the contra aspects.

The so-called 15:51 proposal, which is about a share of 15% of the revenue or a share of 51% of the operational profit margin, is also interesting.

Eventually, a new License Model (LM) will be a mixture of all suggestions or proposals.
So far we have the following parameters, that would be informations in a summary of business plan (as discussed in the issue #283 of the 24th of April 2020):

• non-industrial sectors without Information and Communication Technology (ICT),
• public and federal institutes and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) without ICT,
• public and federal institutes and SOEs with ICT, non-industrial sectors with ICT, and non-ICT industrial sectors without ICT,
• non-ICT industrial sectors (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT, and
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector

• technology platform,
• computing platform,
• utility platform,
• interaction networking platform, including social and societal networking platform,
• Electronic Commerce (EC) platform, including online marketplace,
• on-demand service platform,
• content crowdsourcing platform,
• data harvesting platform, and
• content distribution platform.

9 types of platform differentiated in 7 exchange platforms (1:1 or 1:few interactions) and 2 maker platforms (1:* or 1:many interactions)

• service platform or marketplace,
• product platform or marketplace,
• payment platform,
• investment platform,
• social networking platform,
• collaboration and communication platform, and
• social gaming platform,

• content platform
  • social (with other users) and
  • commercial (with other media)

  and

• development platform
  • crowdsourced,
  • controlled,
  • closed, and
  • open.

• Trust as a Service (TaaS) only available for licensing in parts
• Ontologic System as a Service (OSaaS) only available in parts
• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) share of 20 or 25% of revenue
• Technology as a Service (TaaS)
  • System as a Service (SaaS or SysaaS) share of 20 or 25% of revenue
    • Operating system as a Service (OpsaaS) (e.g. over the air update or remote update, integration of ON and OW, including Grid, Cloud, Edge, Fog Computing (GCEFC))
    • Mobile Backend as a Service (MBaaS) or Backend as a Service (BaaS or BackaaS),
    • Container as a Service (CaaS),
    • Data Lake as a Service (DLaaS),
  • Platform as a Service (PaaS) share of 20 or 25% of revenue
    • Blockchain PaaS,
    • Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded System (NES) PaaS,
    • Communications PaaS,
    • Application PaaS,
  • Energy Storage as a Service (ESaaS)
  • Mobility as a Service (MaaS) share of 15 or 20% of revenue
  • Transport as a Service (TaaS) share of 15 or 20% of revenue
  • Electric Vehicle as a Service (EVaaS)
• Data as a Service (DaaS) share of 15 or 20% of revenue
• Goods as a Service (GaaS) share of 15 or 20% of revenue or the higher of fixed fee according to list and relative share of 7.5 or 10% of sale revenue
  • Software Application as a Service (SAaaS)
  • Software as a Service (SaaS of SWaaS)
  • Hardware as a Service (HaaS)
• service share of 7.5 or 10% of revenue

An application can be a User Interface (UI) for a service.
A service is commonly provided with an application to an end user.
A service can provide an Application Programming Interface (API).
A service providing an API is viewed as a service platform as well.
Services and APIs have to be registered at our SOPR for guaranteeing interoperability.

We have determined the following influencing factors:

• height of overall revenue
• net profit margin.

Count of applications or services

Count of end entities

• maximal 50 end entities 0% of revenue
• maximal 1,000 end entities {half rate}% of revenue
• maximal 10,000 end entities {normal rate}% of revenue
• more than 10,000 end entities; we have an e-commerce or other platform and hence another licensee class

• staged by 100 end entities until more than 10,000 end entities

Height of revenue and profit per single OAOS or licensee class

• maximal 33.333 billion U.S. Dollar normal share of revenue per single app or service
• more than 33.333 billion U.S. Dollar normal share + 2.5 or 5% of revenue per single app or service
• more than 100 billion U.S. Dollar normal share + 5 or 10% of revenue per each single independent licensee (e.g. parent company)

• maximal 10.000 billion U.S. Dollar normal share of revenue per single app or service
• more than 10.000 billion U.S. Dollar normal share + 1% of revenue per additional 10 billion U.S. Dollar

All percent values With All Discounts Granted (WADG) if not said otherwise.

07.May.2020

08.May.2020

09.May.2020

11.May.2020

14.May.2020

06:51 and 11:00 UTC+2
Clarification

Like the copyright, the property law comprises license and royalty. We would like to share some more aspects that guided us when drafting our agreements, contracts, and License Model (LM).

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject license in the context of property law as part of its common law series: "A license (American English) or licence (British English)[1] is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit).[1]
A license can be granted by a party to another party as an element of an agreement between those parties. A shorthand definition of a license is "an authorization to use licensed material."
[...]
A licensor may grant a license under intellectual property laws to authorize a use (such as copying software or using a patented invention) to a licensee, sparing the licensee from a claim of infringement brought by the licensor.[2] [...]
[...]
A shorthand definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee". That means without a license any use or exploitation of intellectual property by a third party would amount to copying or infringement. Such copying would be improper and could, by using the legal system, be stopped if the intellectual property owner wanted to do so.[3]
[...]

Artwork and character licensing
A licensor may grant a permission to a licensee to copy and distribute copyrighted works such as "art" (e.g., [...] painting [...]) and characters (e.g., Mickey Mouse). With such license, a licensee need not fear a claim of copyright infringement brought by the copyright owner."

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject music licensing: "Music licensing is the licensed use of copyrighted music.[1] Music licensing is intended to ensure that the owners of copyrights on musical works are compensated for certain uses of their work. A purchaser has limited rights to use the work without a separate agreement.

Definitions
The following words and phrases appear in discussion of music licensing:
license [] the right, granted by the copyright holder or his/her agent, for the broadcast, recreation, or performance of a copyrighted work. Types of licensing contracts can include: 1) a flat fee for a defined period of usage, or 2) royalty payments determined by the number of copies of the work sold or the total revenues acquired as a result of its distribution. In addition to a basic fee, most music licensing agreements require additional payments to the copyright owner when the work in which it is included (movie, play) is financially successful above a certain threshold.[2]
licensor [] the owner of the licensed work
licensee [] the person or entity to whom the work is licensed
performance [] the public performance of a musical piece, whether live or recorded, performed by the original artist or someone else, whether the performance keeps to the original version or is adapted or changed in some manner. Playing a music CD (or tape, etc.) in public is "performing" the work.
copyright [] literally, 'the right to copy.' The owner of a copyright has five exclusive rights: reproduction (copying), preparing derivative works (adaptation), distributing copies to the public, performing the work publicly, and displaying the work in public. Prior to 1886, no effective international law of copyright existed. The first major international copyright law conventions were the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works created in 1886. In the US, for works created in 1977 and after the work is protected by copyright when it is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression," without the need to register it with the US Copyright Office.[6] A work must be registered, however, before a copyright owner may bring suit for infringement.[7]
[...]

Performance Licensing
In general, someone who plans to perform a piece of music publicly will obtain a "public performance" license from the rightsholder (often the music publisher). Purchasing a copy of the sheet music does not itself usually provide public performance rights[.]
Developing one's own arrangement of the music is considered a derivative work, which would ordinarily require a separate license. The derivative work is itself copyrighted, but if the original work is under copyright, then permission of both the composition's rightsholder and of the arrangement's rightsholder is needed before performance, distribution, or recording is planned. An arrangement of a traditional song or piece of music will be protected by copyright even if the original piece is in the public domain. [...]
In the United States, limitations and exceptions to performance rights include fair use and the performances described under Section 110 of the US copyright statute[.][14] The fair use limitation defines uses that are not "infringements", based on consideration of factors such as how the original work was used, the nature of the original work, how much of it was used, and if the original rightsholder suffered economic harm.[15]
In spite of folk wisdom to the contrary, there is no "three second rule" for copying or sampling recorded music. There is no rule that "four notes" can be copied without penalty. Instances under the fair use exception might include criticism or comment. Criticism need not be negative: [...] it might be viewed as an homage.[16] Music sampling has been aggressively pursued by copyright holders as a form of "free riding" but might be interpreted as a transformative use.[17]"

Simply substitute music with Ontologic or Ontologic System to understand our managing and collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) in a better way.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject royalty payment: "A royalty is a payment made by one party (the licensee or franchisee) to another that owns a particular asset (the licensor or franchisor), for the right to ongoing use of that asset. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments.[8]
A license agreement defines the terms under which a resource or property are licensed by one party to another, either without restriction or subject to a limitation on term, business or geographic territory, type of product, etc. License agreements can be regulated, particularly where a government is the resource owner, or they can be private contracts that follow a general structure. However, certain types of franchise agreements have comparable provisions.[...]
[...]

Copyright
Copyright law gives the owner the right to prevent others from copying, creating derivative works, or using their works. Copyrights, like patent rights, can be divided in many different ways, by the right implicated, by specific geographic or market territories, or by more specific criteria. Each may be the subject of a separate license and royalty arrangements.
Copyright royalties are often very specific to the nature of work and field of endeavour. With respect to music, royalties for performance rights in the United States are set by the Library of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board. Performance rights to recordings of a performance are usually managed by one of several performance rights organizations. Payments from these organizations to performing artists are known as residuals and performance royalties. Royalty-free music provides more direct compensation to the artists. In 1999, recording artists formed the Recording Artists' Coalition to repeal supposedly "technical revisions" to American copyright statutes which would have classified all "sound recordings" as "works for hire", effectively assigning artists' copyrights to record labels.[21][22]
Book authors may sell their copyright to the publisher. Alternatively, they might receive as a royalty a certain amount per book sold. It is common in the UK for example, for authors to receive a 10% royalty on book sales.

Book publishing
All book-publishing royalties are paid by the publisher, who determines an author's royalty rate, except in rare cases in which the author can demand high advances and royalties.
[...]

	Retail Basis	Net Basis
Royalty Rate	20%	20%

[...]

Software royalties
There is simply too much computer software to consider the royalties applicable to each. The following is a guide to royalty rates:[69]

Music
Unlike other forms of intellectual property, music royalties have a strong linkage to individuals - composers (score), songwriters (lyrics) and writers of musical plays - in that they can own the exclusive copyright to created music and can license it for performance independent of corporates. Recording companies and the performing artists that create a "sound recording" of the music enjoy a separate set of copyrights and royalties from the sale of recordings and from their digital transmission (depending on national laws).
With the advent of pop music and major innovations in technology in the communication and presentations of media, the subject of music royalties has become a complex field with considerable change in the making.[when?]
A musical composition obtains copyright protection as soon as it is written out or recorded. However, it is not protected from infringed use unless it is registered with the copyright authority, for instance, the United States Copyright Office, which is administered by the Library of Congress. No person or entity, other than the copyright owner, can use or employ the music for gain without obtaining a license from the composer/songwriter.
Inherently, as copyright, it confers on its owner, a distinctive "bundle" of five exclusive rights:
(a) to make copies of the songs through print or recordings
(b) to distribute them to the public for profit
(c) to the "public performance right"; live or through a recording
(d) to create a derivative work to include elements of the original music; and
(e) to "display" it (not very relevant in context).
[...]

Other royalty arrangements
The term "royalty" also covers areas outside of IP and technology licensing, such as oil, gas, and mineral royalties paid to the owner of a property by a resources development company in exchange for the right to exploit the resource. In a business project the promoter, financier, LHS enabled the transaction but are no longer actively interested may have a royalty right to a portion of the income, or profits, of the business. This sort of royalty is often expressed as a contract right to receive money based on a royalty formula, rather than an actual ownership interest in the business. In some businesses this sort of royalty is sometimes called an override.
[...]

Approaches to royalty rate
Intellectual property
The rate of royalty applied in a given case is determined by various factors, the most notable of which are:

To correctly gauge royalty rates, the following criteria must be taken into consideration:

[...]

Comparable market approach
Here the cost and the risk of development are disregarded. The royalty rate is determined from comparing competing or similar technologies in an industry, modified by considerations of useful "remaining life" of the technology in that industry and contracting elements such as exclusivity provisions, front-end royalties, field of use restrictions, geographic limitations and the "technology bundle" (the mix of patents, know-how, trade-mark rights, etc.) accompanying it. Economist J. Gregory Sidak explains that comparable licenses, when selected correctly, "reveal what the licensor and the licensee consider to be fair compensation for the use of the patented technology" and thus "will most accurately depict the price that a licensee would willingly pay for that technology."[73] The Federal Circuit has on numerous occasions confirmed that the comparable market approach is a reliable methodology to calculate a reasonable royalty.[74 [Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012).]]
Although widely used, the prime difficulty with this method is obtaining access to data on comparable technologies and the terms of the agreements that incorporate them. Fortunately, there are several recognized[...] organizations (see "Royalty Rate Websites" [...]) who have comprehensive[...] information on both royalty rates and the principal terms of the agreements of which they are a part. There are also IP-related organizations, such as the Licensing Executives Society, which enable its members to access and share privately assembled data.
The two tables shown below are drawn, selectively, from information that is available with an IP-related organization and on-line.[75][76] The first depicts the range and distribution of royalty rates in agreements. The second shows the royalty rate ranges in select technology sectors (latter data sourced from: Dan McGavock of IPC Group, Chicago, USA).

Royalty Distribution Analysis in Industry

Industry	[...]	Max. Royalty	Average	Median
Automotive		15.0%	4.7%	4.0%
Computers		15.0%	5.2%	4.0%
Consumer G[oo]ds		17.0%	5.5%	5.0%
Electronics		15.0%	4.3%	4.0%
Healthcare		77.0%	5.8%	4.8%
Internet [Software]		40.0%	11.7%	7.5%
Pharma[ceuticals]/Bio		40.0%	7.0%	5.1%
Software		70.0%	10.5%	6.8%
[Overall Average]		[36.13%]	[6.84%]	[5.15%]

[Royalty Distribution Calculation in Industry]

Industry	Average (Max. Royalty + Average)	Average (Max. Royalty + Average + Median)
Automotive	9.85%	7.90%
Computers	10.10%	8.07%
Consumer Goods	11.25%	9.17%
Electronics	9.65%	7.77%
Healthcare	41.4%	29.20%
Internet Software	25.58%	19.73%
Pharmaceuticals/Bio	23.50%	17.37%
Software	40.25%	29.10%
Overall Average	21.45%	16.04%

Royalty Rate Segmentation in Some Technology Sectors

Industry	0 - 2%	2 - 5%	5 - 10%	10 - 15%	15 - 20%	20 - 25%
Aerospace	50%	50%
[Automotive]
Computer[s]	62.5%	31.3%	6.3%
[Consumer Goods]
Electronics		50.0%	25.0%	25.0%
Healthcare	3.3%	51.7%	45.0%
[Internet SW]
Pharmaceuticals	23.6%	32.1%	29.3%	12.5%	1.1%	0.7%
[Software]
Telecom	40.0%	37.3%	23.6%

The comparability between transactions requires a comparison of the significant economic conditions that may affect the contracting parties:

Income approach
The Income approach focuses on the licensor estimating the profits generated by the licensee and obtaining an appropriate share of the generated profit. It is unrelated to costs of technology development or the costs of competing technologies.
The approach requires the licensee (or licensor):
(a) to generate a cash-flow projection of incomes and expenses over the life-span of the license under an agreed scenario of incomes and costs
(b) determining the Net Present Value, NPV of the profit stream, based on a selected discount factor, and
(c) negotiating the division of such profit between the licensor and the licensee.
The NPV of a future income is always lower than its current value because an income in the future is attended by risk. In other words, an income in the future needs to be discounted, in some manner, to obtain its present equivalent. The factor by which a future income is reduced is known as the 'discount rate'. Thus, $1.00 received a year from now is worth $0.9091 at a 10% discount rate, and its discounted value will be still lower two years down the line.
The actual discount factor used depends on the risk assumed by the principal gainer in the transaction. For instance, a mature technology worked in different geographies, will carry a lower risk of non-performance (thus, a lower discount rate) than a technology being applied for the first time. A similar situation arises when there is the option of working the technology in one of two different regions; the risk elements in each region would be different.
The method is treated in greater detail, using illustrative data, in Royalty Assessment.
The licensor's share of the income is usually set by the "25% rule of thumb", which is said to be even used by tax authorities in the US and Europe for arms-length transactions. The share is on the [Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) or] operating profit of the licensee firm. Even where such division is held contentious, the rule can still be the starting point of negotiations.
Following are three aspects that are important for the profit:
(a) the profit that accrues to the licensee may not arise solely through the engine of the technology. There are returns from the mix of assets it employs such as fixed and working capital and the returns from intangible assets such as distribution systems, trained workforce, etc. Allowances need to be made for them.
(b) profits are also generated by thrusts in the general economy, gains from infrastructure, and the basket of licensed rights - patents, trademark, know-how. A lower royalty rate may apply in an advanced country where large market volumes can be commanded, or where protection to the technology is more secure than in an emerging economy (or perhaps, for other reasons, the inverse).
(c) the royalty rate is only one aspect of the negotiation. Contractual provisions such as an exclusive license, rights to sub-license, warranties on the performance of technology etc may enhance the advantages to the licensee, which is not compensated by the 25% metric.
The basic advantage of this approach, which is perhaps the most widely applied, is that the royalty rate can be negotiated without comparative data on how other agreements have been transacted. In fact, it is almost ideal for a case where precedent does not exist.
It is, perhaps, relevant to note that the IRS also uses these three methods, in modified form, to assess the attributable income, or division of income, from a royalty-based transaction between a US company and its foreign subsidiary (since US law requires that a foreign subsidiary pay an appropriate royalty to the parent company).[78]

Other compensation modes
Royalties are only one among many ways of compensating owners for use of an asset. Others include:

In discussing the licensing of Intellectual Property, the terms valuation and evaluation need to be understood in their rigorous terms. Evaluation is the process of assessing a license in terms of the specific metrics of a particular negotiation, which may include its circumstances, the geographical spread of licensed rights, product range, market width, licensee competitiveness, growth prospects, etc.
On the other hand, valuation is the fair market value (FMV) of the asset - trademark, patent or know-how - at which it can be sold between a willing buyer and willing seller in the context of best awareness of circumstances. The FMV of the IP, where assessable, may itself be a metric for evaluation."

For better understanding we also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject median: "In statistics and probability theory, the median is the value separating the higher half from the lower half of a data sample, a population or a probability distribution. For a data set, it may be thought of as the "middle" value. For example, the basic advantage of the median in describing data compared to the mean (often simply described as the "average") is that it is not skewed so much by a small proportion of extremely large or small values, and so it may give a better idea of a "typical" value."
Obviously, the idea is always based on the given data and hence the median might be misleading or even irrelevant.

Howsoever, because the aspects for determing a royalty for an Intellectual Property (IP) also show that we have even more and better arguments than already pointed out before, we have to take the maximal royalty in the first table about the royalty rate segmentation as the guiding benchmark or for example the average of the maximal royalty and the average royalty (see the second column in the second table added above by us), which literally spoken would also take the income approach into account.
Obviously, no share lower than around 10 to 30% of the revenue should be considered by us as Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC), as our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) always argues and asks for. In fact, our License Model (LM) is absolutely sound and proper in each and every aspect. It even appears to be the case that our fees and shares for

are (much) too low.

By the way:

• Unified Modeling Language (UML),
• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW),
• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx),
• field of Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC),
• fields of Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded System (NES), and also
• Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC),
• integration of distributed ledger and blockchain-based system,
• smartphones, smartwatches, and other smart devices, and also Ontoscope variants,
• fields of biotechnology and systems biology,
• fields of autonomous system and robotic system, as well as
• all the new real and virtual, respectively physical and digital infrastructures

to name just some very few examples.
For sure, we did not all these things alone, but we led the pack as one of the driving forces, if not the driving force, and therefore we have prized in all of our related achievements as well and refuse to sell below price.

15.May.2020

Clarification

We always said that we can show that all

In fact, all these devices respectively Ontoscopes are based on devices operated with

• Geographic Information System (GIS) and
• smart guidance system,

which again are based on

• logic, declarative (Prolog and XSB),
• deductive (XSB),
• relational (SQL),
• imperative, procedural (C),
• object-oriented (C++ and Java), and
• object-relational,

• taxonomy of classes,
• modeling paradigm, specifically
  • Unified Modeling Language (UML),
• Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW),
• Semantic Web Services (SWS),
• ontology-based agent-based system,
• inference engine, and
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing,

• digital signature, which is based on
  • cryptography,

• massively parallel programming, and
• grid computing,

• anthropomorphic and affective User Interface (UI) respectively Human Machine Interface (HMI),
• multimodal situated delegation-oriented dialog system,
• multimodal input,
  • spoken language,
  • user's gestures and facial expressions of emotion,
• multimodal output
  • self-animated interface agent represented as lifelike character (comic figure) uses coordinated speech, gesture, postures, and facial expression for its collaborative dialog with a user,
• multiple tuple space, and
• model of a
  • user,
  • domain,
  • task,
  • context, and
  • modality,

on which we worked before or at that time besides all those spying entities from science and industry, that most of the time followed us and stole our works.

Impressive as these standards and technologies listed above already are, we created

• ontology-based standards and technologies, and also infrastructure and tools,
• HPCS, and
• FTRTDS, as well as
• cognition and the human brain,

and integrated, improved, extended, and developed them much further with

• 3D Computer Vision (CV),
• Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS),
• Cognitive Computing (CogC),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC),
• etc.,

• eye tracking,
• gaze control or gaze tracking,
• hand, head, and other parts of body tracking and gesture tracking in 3D,
• pointing on objects external to a multimodal multimedia system,
• autonomous synthetic character or lifelike agent, and
• 3D environment,

• First-Person Shooter (FPS),
• simulation video game, including
  • vehicle simulation video game and
  • vehicle driving video game,
  • vehicle racing video game, or simulate auto racing or simply sim racing,
• online game, including
  • Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG),
• role-playing video game or simply Role-Playing Game (RPG), including
  • Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Online Game (MMORPG),
• etc.,

• 3D microphones,
• 3D cameras,
• 3D displays,
• and all other kinds of,

• 3D printing

• mobile phone,
• camera,
• wearable sensor and computer,
• SB
  • SoftBionic mobile phone and awareness,
  • SoftBionic camera and awareness, and
  • SoftBionic wearable device and awareness, and
  • context-dependent personal preferences,

• personal memory and
• Adaptive Reflection of Individual User States (ARIUS),

• rewriting system, including
  • hypergraph rewriting and transformation paradigm (PROgramming with Graph REwriting Systems (PROGRES)),
• modeling paradigm (Unified Modeling Language (UML)), and
• multilanguage and multiparadigmatic programming paradigm, including
  • visual programming

• Kernel-Less Operating System (KLOS),
• Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE),
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS), including
  • capability-based security,
• Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos (reflective, actor-based, fault-tolerant, reliable, distributed, and so on),
• L4 (microkernel, capability-based), hypervisor, real-time operating,
• Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) (SB, reflective, realtime, operating system-level virtualization or containerization, Parallel Virtual Machine (PVM), foundation of Autonomic Computing (AC), Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), Ontologic Net (ON), and so on), and
• all the other Operating Systems (OpSs) known in the years 2000 to 2006,
• High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS), including
  • wide area (parallel computing) cluster and fault-tolerant wide area parallel computing system,
• multi-blackboard system, including
  • CHemical Abstract Machine (CHAM),
  • OntoJini, which again is based on
    • adaptive Distributed System (DS), which again is based on
      • Java Jini (Java Virtual Machine (JVM), JavaSpaces tuple space),
      • Multi-ActorAgent System (MAAS),
• mobile computing, including
  • context-aware mobile computing,
• etc.,

• OntoCore (OC or OCore),
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS), including
  • verifiable or verified computing,
  • capability-based security,
  • attribute-based cryptosystem respectively Attribute-Based Encryption (ABE),
  • homomorphic cryptosystem respectively Partially Homomorphic Encryption (PHE) and Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE),
  • Probabilistically Checkable Proof (PCP) system,
  • searchable cryptosystem respectively Searchable Encryption (SE) and Verifiable Searchable Encryption (VSE),
  • etc.,
  • smart contract-based system,
  • blockchain-based system,
  • Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) of us (used illegally for Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., and Blockchain as a Service (BaaS or BlaaS)), and
  • other digital and virtual ledger technologies,
• High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS), including
  • Virtual Service Grid (VSG), which is based on
    • Autonomic Computing (AC),
    • Peer-to-Peer (P2P) computing,
    • grid computing, and
    • Problem Solving Environment (PSE),
  • wide area (parallel computing) cluster and fault-tolerant wide area parallel computing system,
  • systems based on
    • Distributed Hash Table (DHT) data structure, including
      • Tapestry (fault-tolerant wide-area location and routing) and
      • Chord,
    • eXtensible Array (XArray) data structure,
    • Chord# lookup algorithm,
    • etc.,
• multi-blackboard system, including
  • CHemical Abstract Machine (CHAM),
  • multiple tuple space, and
  • Scalable Distributed Tuplespace (SDT),
• MAS,
• MMOG,
• Virtual Object System (VOS),
• Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded System (NES), including
  • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
  • Industry 4.0 and 5.0,
  • etc.

• Calibre/Caliber,
• Mediated Reality (MedR), including
  • Augmented Reality (AR),
  • Virtual Reality (VR),
  • Mixed Reality (MR),
  • etc.,
• Ontologic Reality (OR), including
  • Semantic Reality (SR or SemR) or Ontology-based Reality (ObR),
  • SoftBionic Reality (SBR),
  • etc.,
• Ontologic Collaborative Virtual Environment (OntoCOVE), Anthropocentric Sensory Immersion, and Simulation (OASIS), and
• Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR),

to name just some few of the

• improves every single prior art,
• synthesizes their common denominator, and
• integrates all in one,

and

Missing in this clarification or explanation are all the

influences, aspects, ideas, concepts, expressions, and properties.

But until today we are not willing to reference works and projects, which are based on espionage or other kinds of fraud, and we even are not needing to reference them, because we have taken other prior art and created the missing parts with our works of art by going from UI and OpS, Internet, WWW, SWWW, and so on to OS, OAOS, and also ON, OW, and OV, and so on. Therefore, we make very clear instead where their illegal and even serious criminal actions have their limits ultimately.

In this relation, we also announced several years ago that we will update our first attempt to characterize the handheld variant of our Ontoscope, also wrongly called smartphone, which does not need two or more lenses (think about a pirat with an eye patch or a cyclops), though it makes recognizing an Ontoscope much simpler on the one hand and on the other hand as the original creator we have our freedoms to describe and interpret our works of art anyway.

16.May.2020

18.May.2020

19.May.2020

20.May.2020

22.May.2020

25.May.2020

14:51, 15:21, and 17:34 UTC+2
Clarification

On the website of a F.R.German law firm one can find this legal assessments in relation to applications and services for tracking, tracing, and warning among other things: "Problematic with the model presented here may be that not all smartphone [Ontoscope] users install and use the app. If only about half of the population uses the app, the spread of [a] virus would probably be insufficiently inhibited. It would therefore be conceivable that the current contact restrictions would only be lifted for those users, who have the opportunity and agree to install and use the app. A more drastic measure, that therefore has to be well worth considering, would be that the authorities issue a general ruling obliging citizens to use the app and to monitor their use."

We also find the following legal assessments interesting:
"Anonymous data are generally not protected
Only if the user data for another party, such as users, authorities, app operators, is "personally identifiable" at all, i.e. if the latter can determine the identity of the user with reasonable effort (cf. Art. 4 No. 1 [Basic data protection regulation==Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (]DS-GVO[)]), would it be protected by applicable data protection law. However, this is not the case if only anonymous device data is exchanged between the mobile phones [Ontoscopes], where no user can identify the other. Also for the app operator and for authorities knowledge of the user names or other identifying features is not mandatory. At most, if the use of the app would be obligatory and the authorities would also monitor the installation, personal data would be processed (but in this case no health data, but only the information whether a user has installed the app).
One could judge otherwise, if the rather restrictive case law of the European Court of Justice in the "Planet49" case from October 2019 on cookies stored on the terminal device were to be applied. The argument for this would be that the app also stores "timestamps", i.e. places visited by persons at risk in the past. One could object to that, that these timestamps stored on the terminal devices, unlike cookies, are not intended to be read and used by a responsible person".

"Permission standards that do not require user consent
Consent by the users would only be necessary, if their data firstly would be personal, this could be avoided here [in our opinion (]IOO[)], and secondly no other permission norm would be relevant. In the present case, however, data processing is permissible for reasons of public interest in the field of public health (Article 9 Para. 2 lit. i DS-GVO). Germany has created the necessary national law under the DS-GVO with the amended Section 22 Para. 1 No. 1 lit. c of the Federal Data Protection Act (FDPA)==Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG). For public bodies, Section 22 (1) No. 2 BDSG also provides for a number of circumstances, in which personal data, including even health data, may be processed, for example "in order to avert substantial disadvantages for the common good". In a crisis such as the current pandemic it can hardly be disputed that the German population is threatened with considerable disadvantages, both in terms of health and economy, which would justify the processing of health data.
It is also necessary that the data controller provides for appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect the rights of users (Section 22 Para. 2 BDSG). This is also a requirement that is otherwise usual in data protection law and therefore should not be an obstacle to operating a [tracking, tracing, or warning] app, even if the greatest possible attention must be paid to this requirement due to the expected data volumes.
If the German legislator did not want to regard the BDSG as a sufficient legal basis due to lack of certainty, a corresponding permit could also be created in the existing Infection Protection Act. So in general, it is completely irrelevant by whom and how tracking, tracing, and warning applications are designed, implemented, and operated as long as applicable law is complied with, which is relatively simple, because compliance with data protection laws, regulations, and acts is common in the industry. In particular, the question of whether a decentralized or centralized system architecture should be used does not matter at all in order to comply with the legal requirements.
In particular, our regulations as well as terms and conditions apply to the performance and reproduction of Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), as well as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
Thus, the federal government can only ask our managing and collecting Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) to create a tracking, tracins, or warning app and to cooperate with public authorities in a very nice way, but cannot force a modification of the artwork or the self-image with the title Ontological System, due to the personal rights of C.S.

By the way: We also have to ask law firms to mention C.S. and our corporation whenever a legal assessment concerns or involves our rights, as in the case of the traking, tracing, and warning applications, which are software applications, which again are executed on our Ontoscope (Os) or are executed in our Ontologic Net (ON) or Ontologic Web (OW) or both, which means being treated in the

13:31, 14:11, 15:11, and 20:11 UTC+2
SOPR #287

*** Work in progress - some better explanations ***
Topics

Legal matter
We have no intention to modify our Ontologic System (OS) more than required for fulfilling the demands of the societies. There will be no reward for illegal activities.
Quite contrary, if a state does not stop with damaging the goals or even threatening the integrity of our SOPR, then we might not modify our OS at all, which means no licensing of any performance and reproduction of our OS, but only exclusive performance and reproduction by our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation.
The latter might be the case if a prosecutor refuse to take decisive actions or a court refuse to make a truly convincing judgement and punishment, as done in the last past in the F.R.Germany in case of the vehicle manufacturer Volkswagen.
We will not tolerate rogue states.

We tent to keep our set of rules designated as SOPR 1.0 and only revise the License Model (LM) by considering to merge or extend the set of rules designated as SOPR 1.0 with parts of the set of rules designated as SOPR 2.0.
Anyway, the

remain.

The management of the development and the operation of warning applications and so-called Corona apps are exclusive tasks of our SOPR, because they belong to our Healthcare 4.0 subsystem (see also the section Medicine and Healthcare below). Therefore,

In this relation, it is completely irrelevant how warning applications and so-called Corona apps are designed and implemented, because our terms and conditions apply to all performances and reproductions of Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and Ontological Applications and Ontological Services (OAOS).
Governments and companies, that have not communicated with our SOPR about such applications, might face legal consequences in addition to increased royalties and other measures as part of the the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) being effective and also the revised set of rules.

States without Corona app remain in the revised set of rules designated SOPR 1.0.

We are considering to establish joint ventures only in case of national security, because there is too much foul play by companies owned in whole or in part by states.

License Model (LM)
We also found some more important aspects in addition to the ones already listed in the issue #286 of the 4th of May 2020 that are relevant for drafting a new License Model (LM).
Pro aspects for 15% and 30%

Contra aspects against 15% and 30%

hardware goods, software goods, platform types, and as a Service models the higher one of fixed fee or relative share of the revenue around two-third of the average of the maximal royalty and the average royalty (second column of the second table Royalty Distribution Calculation in Industry added to the Clarification of the 14th of May 2020 by us)

Hardware goods	Two-third of Average (Maximal Royalty + Average Royalty)
Aerospace	6.66%
Automotive	6.56%
Computers	6.73%
Consumer Goods	7.50%
Electronics	6.43%
Software goods, platform types, and as a Service models
Healthcare	27.60%
Internet Software	17.05%
Pharmaceuticals/Bio	15.55%
Software	26.83%
Telecom	11.00%

All percent values With All Discounts Granted (WADG) if not said otherwise.

With this table it can be understood very easily how we came to the 7.5, 15, 30 and 7, 17, 27 proposals for up to 3 applications and services, up to 3 platforms, up to 3 infrastructures in case of the ICT industrial sector

• 7%; maximal 3 related (integrated, connected, business) applications and services, and OAOS,
• 17%; maximal 3 related (integrated, connected, business) superapplications or platforms,
• 27%; maximal 3 related (integrated, connected, business) superplatforms or infrastructures.

• Web Service Provider (WSP) or
• Cloud Service Provider (CSP or CloudSP) providing for example a Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) platform, or even
  • carrier-grade ComSP providing or even utilizing for example a Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) carrier cloud for providing carrier-grade TSP cloud (telco cloud),

Platform types vs. as a Service models
We viewed the term cloud computing as a marketing term for a field that would be the next generation of the fields of utility computing and grid computing, which were integrated with operating system virtualization or containerization, and Service-Oriented technologies (SOx). As we found out and showed in great detail in January 2020, the foundations of these integrations, which transformed utility computing and grid computing into cloud computing, were introduced with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos).
But before cloud computing became an interesting option, we also already developed it further once again to our

which already include the

Specifically, the latest developments around GCEFC with container orchestration, service meshing, Blockchain as a Service (BaaS), microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA), and so on showed that it was not about GCEFC at all but something else all the time, namely the related parts of our ON, OW, and OV.
Due to these facts, we

• platform types,
• as a Service (aaS) (capability) models, and
• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) respectively Everything as a Service (EaaS) model,

But neither must

In the last weeks, we tried to structure the platform types and aaS models for the reason of better discussing, and accounting or collecting of royalties

to make it the foundation for the next revision of our LM (see for example the issues #283 of the 24th of April 2020 and #286 of the 4th of May 2020).

Medicine and Healthcare
The reason why our SOPR added the

to its range of exclusive subsystems and platforms is quite simple: either no entity did it at all or no entity did it right.

Only recently, some new developments ...

• operated illegally
  • on our Ontoscope or
  • in our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Web (OW) or
  • both,

  and

• integrated illegally with our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Systems

(see the issues #243 of the 3rd of November 2019 and #245 of the 7th of November 2019).

Finally, our SOPR introduced Medicine 4.0 and 5.0 and Healthcare 4.0 and 5.0 as exclusive subsystems and platforms, because we take advantages, when leading the way once again.