Ontoscope Further steps

We have developed the next generation of our Ontoscope Nano in two variants with different network technology. More variants might follow with some more features.

10.October.2020

06:12, 09:05, 16:38, 30:36, and 43:47 UTC+2
Clarification or
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM or
both

*** Work in progress - maybe some more quotes, thoughts, etc. missing; better wording, explanation, and structure, overall summary ***
We took a look at the field of Service-Oriented Infrastructure (SOI), including its adaption for Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) respectively its extension to Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure (SOCCI) on the basis of as a Service (aaS) capability models, specifically Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS or SWaaS), that might correct some statements made in the related Clarifications and Further steps of the {dates missing} ... January 2020, 14th and 20th of August 2020, if required at all.

At first, we quote an online encyclopedia about the subject agile software development for better understanding:
"In software development, agile [...] practices approach discovering requirements and developing solutions through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional teams and their customer(s)/end user(s).[2] It advocates adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, and continual improvement, and it encourages flexible responses to change."
Somehow, the agile software development method has characteristics of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and is related to microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA).

We quote a webpage and a related document of the company Fusion Dynamic, which are about SOI and the company's so-called software-based operating environment and dynamic operating environment for data centers.
At first, we quote the webpage publicated on the 6th of September 2006:
"Beyond Virtualization: New Operating Environment Offers First True Service-Oriented Infrastructure For Data Centers
"O/S for Data Centers" Dynamically Allocates Hardware, Software, Network Resources in Real Time; Shifts Management Focus from "Servers" to "Service"
[... The company] has announced today the general availability of its DynamicOE® "operating environment" for data centers - a new class of operating software that dynamically links the key hardware and software resources in a modern data center into a flexible, adaptive, fault-tolerant, and self-healing infrastructure. The "service-oriented infrastructure" created by DynamicOE permits data centers to be provisioned, managed, replicated, and maintained from a high-level, abstract, "application and service delivery" perspective, rather than from the low-level, physical-resource perspective that consumes growing amounts of personnel and capital in virtually every commercial and enterprise data center today. The result is high availability of services, combined with a significant reduction in capital and operational expenses.
According to [the] CEO of [the company], the service-oriented infrastructure is a crucial and significant evolutionary step in the final transformation of computing into a pure utility. "In the 21st century enterprise - in fact, in everyday life - the services provided by data centers are becoming like air; they're all around us, and necessary for life. The infrastructures of even the most technically-advanced data centers have to support this reality."
As businesses move to transform themselves into adaptive, "service-oriented enterprises", [...]. Consequently, there has been much innovation, both in thinking and in practice, to attain data centers that can adapt dynamically to changing internal and external situations. Microsoft, HP, and Fujitsu, in particular, have done innovative work in promoting the concept of the "dynamic data center" [...]. And particularly significant has been the progress in "virtualization" - the ability to represent - and more important - allocate and manage resources as abstract - rather than physical - entities. "The virtualization trend is perhaps the most significant thing to happen to enterprise computing in recent years," [...]. "It's everywhere - in most trade articles, in every conference, and in most datasheets. And yet, by itself, it's not enough. We have to go beyond virtualization."
What's beyond virtualization [...] and beyond the dynamic data center, is an organic model - supported by a new, software-driven operating environment - that takes a holistic view of all available resources, and is capable of allocating and managing them collectively, to deliver the desired services and service levels. "This is the service-oriented infrastructure," [...].

Service Delivery Focus
[The CEO] said that the business issues notwithstanding, a service-delivery focus has become even more important with the emergence of the "Service-oriented Architecture" (SOA) model for software. Under SOA, the massive, monolithic applications of the past are gone, replaced by cooperating groups of applets - called services - that run on servers distributed around the world. "It won't do", he says, "if 10,000 enterprises are depending upon an accounting applet running in Bangalore, and the server melts down, or one fetal monitor is streaming data to the Johns-Hopkins data center and the router hangs. One has to think about the data center in terms of end-to-end service delivery."
The service-delivery focus, both to support the service-oriented enterprise, as well as the service-oriented architecture, led the [company] to define a minimum set of criteria for a true, service-oriented infrastructure:

Needed: A New Operating "Environment"
Accomplishing these objectives, [the company] believed, would require a new type of operating system that acted across the various resources of a data center. To avoid confusion with classic CPU and network operating systems, with their intra-hardware focus, [the company] chose to call its concept an "operating environment" - to highlight the inter-resource - inter-software, inter-hardware, inter-operational - nature of its capabilities.
From these broad goals, the company produced, after 3 years of development efforts, a complete, dynamic operating environment that it dubbed "BladeFusionOE", and released it to run on the IBM blade server chassis - what some have dubbed a "data center in a box." [...] BladeFusionOE was deployed with over a dozen enterprise class companies worldwide [...]. Each was a revenue deployment in a mission-critical application.
Based upon customer experience and real-life operating experience, Fusion Dynamic has developed the successor product for general release, and now announces its availability as DynamicOE.

[The company]'s DynamicOE
[The company]'s DynamicOE offers a near-turnkey operating environment that provides end-to-end service modeling; dynamic binding of applications, servers, network, and storage; automated provisioning and availability management from high-level, service-oriented models; replication of service models across data centers (i.e., from OE to OE), and dynamic, real-time, automated adjustment of service capacities.
The secure infrastructure management provide by DynamicOE includes the provisioning and management of the network topology; drag-and-drop configurations, end-to-end network high availability, and the ability to bind in critical, third-party services, such as a unified threat-management solution into a dynamic environment that can run without manual intervention.
DynamicOE's single or multiple model-based control structure provides simplicity and visibility for the control of any application services, including the configuration of network paths, and the deployment of network storage. The operating environment implements service management policies across heterogeneous operating systems and virtual operating systems that can include Linux, Windows, and various security OS images.
Automated provisioning and prioritization capabilities optimize high quality of service (QoS), and both N+1 and pre-emptive high availability features can coordinate server, application, and secure network failovers [see Note].
[...]
[The company] is actively working with tier-1 software and hardware providers to embed portions of the highly modular DynamicOE operating environment in their product offerings [...].
In addition, an enterprise version of the DynamicOE that runs on the IBM BladeCenter is currently being offered under a carefully-controlled, strategic partnership program. [...]
"[The company]'s offering of a dynamic, data-center-wide operating environment will enable enterprises to transform their data centers into truly agile, integrated infrastructures closely aligned with business needs and goals," [...]. "[...] important, new technology." [A commentator] has written extensively on the need to re-architect IT infrastructures for the service-oriented enterprise.

About [the company]
[The company] has pioneered the service-oriented infrastructure for the data center, a broad-scope, software-based operating environment that dynamically links all of the hardware and software resources into a flexible, adaptive, fault-tolerant, and self-healing infrastructure. This infrastructure permits data centers to be provisioned, managed, and maintained from a high-level, abstract, "application and service delivery" perspective, rather than from the low-level, physical-resource perspective that consumes growing amounts of personnel and capital in virtually every commercial and enterprise data center today. The result is ultra-high availability of services, reduced hardware requirements, significantly lowered operational complexity, and a commensurate reduction in capital and operational expenses.
[The company]'s flagship DynamicOE operating environment delivers the service-oriented infrastructure to data centers based upon IBM's BladeCenter. Future releases will extend the service-oriented infrastructure to ad hoc collections of servers, network appliances, and storage. [...]
[...]

Note [Sidebar]: N+1 high availability takes its name from the industry practice of providing backup for critical resources, such as servers or file systems, by having an identical system in reserve as a "hot" or "warm" backup - a practice that leads to a "2N" model, or a doubling of equipment, and a doubling of cost. In [the company]'s N+1 model, there is only one spare for N - perhaps 10 - servers, etc. That one spare, however, would have to be able to assume the role of any of the failed units, which in turn implies on-the-fly "bare-metal" deployment of an entire operating system, application suite, and provisioning of associated network paths. This, in and of itself, called for the development of a new, data-center-wide operating environment."

We also quote the document publicated on the 5th of October 2006:
"Virtualization Is Not Enough, Says Enterprise Software Executive
Data Centers Need a True Service-Oriented Infrastructure
The scale and complexity of a growing number of enterprise IT infrastructures now equals or exceeds that of many national telecommunications carriers not that many decades ago, and the breadth of services offered to enterprise "clients" exceeds those offered by carriers to their subscribers - even in the recent past - by a order of magnitude. [...] The challenge, then [...] is to come up with a way of managing these massive infrastructures that concentrates on end-to-end service delivery, based upon streamlined, high-level models, rather than today's focus on individual resources - virtualized or real - on a domain-by-domain basis.
"Today's IT departments are drowning in a sea of details, as they try to cope with the explosive growth of their data centers, and the need for their services to be always available [...]. The recent shift towards virtualization - virtual servers, virtual networks and virtualized storage - is only compounding the problem. Although a needed level of flexibility and dynamism results from being able to represent, re-partition, or combine physical resources into abstract ones, the total number of entities to be managed continues to skyrocket. The focus is simply too tactical; the level of abstraction is too low."
[...] a business unit manager planning a new e-commerce program, for example, does not think in terms of hard drives, routers, or firewalls - low level abstractions - but in terms of the end-to-end service that needs to be delivered - an abstraction of the highest level. How it is implemented is of no interest. But what service levels are attained, how the service scales and adapts to changing business conditions, what levels of security are attainable [...].
"Such a professional would like to be able to tell the IT manager: 'Double my capability for daily online sales transactions, I'll sacrifice service levels in self-guided support...' and have the entire data center architecture automatically rework itself," [...]. "And there's the difficulty. Data centers, even cutting-edge dynamic data centers with virtualized resources throughout, simply do not have this type of service-oriented infrastructure."

Missing: A Data-Center-Wide Operating Environment
What is missing [...] is a sort of "operating system for data centers" that can automatically reallocate hardware, software, systems, connections, etc., in terms of high-level, service-driven objectives, as business conditions change, or response to problems or catastrophes, to keep service at guaranteed levels. Such an automated operating environment would feature dramatically simplified ways of provisioning and managing the data center, with the focus being on processes, rather than on specific components and topologies. Behind the scenes, the operating environment would adroitly manage such components and topologies dynamically, asking attention only when something had failed - albeit transparently - thanks to the environment's self-healing capabilities.
The crucial difference between [the company]'s concept of an operating environment, and the historical operating systems - virtual or physical - that control servers, routers, and other components in a data center, is that the operating environment crosses all of the domains and controls them. "The only way you will achieve a true service-oriented infrastructure that delivers substantially improved operating economies; flexibility in design, provisioning, and operations; uncompromising resiliency; and an almost completely hands-off running model [...] is with a software infrastructure that is aware of - and can essentially control - all of the relevant resources in a data center, be they applications, servers, storage, networks. This capability uniquely defines the data center 'operating environment.' If you additionally provide it a with a high-level, abstract control structure that is based upon service delivery, then you have achieved a true service oriented infrastructure."
[The company] has recently introduced the world's first dynamic operating environment for data centers that has the potential to transform a classical, resource-focused data center, into a true, service-oriented dynamic data center capable of meeting the most demanding service-level goals.
[...]"

Comment:
We have not found any evidence respectively teaching, suggestion, and motivation that the fields of operating system-level virtualization or containerization, Network Function Virtualization (NFV) (including Virtualized Network Function (VNF) and Cloud-native Network Function (CNF)), and Software-Defined Networking (SDN) were also meant with the phrase "virtualized, high-level, abstract view of all resources and processes" or other statements.
Likewise, ee have not found any evidence that the field of Software-Defined Infrastructure (SDI) is related to, based on, or partially included in its SOI solution. In fact, SOI is exactly lacking the minimal requirements of typical deployments of SDI, which comprises SDN and cloud computing capabilities at least, that were introduced several years later with our OS and what is called Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure (SOCCI).
The operating environment enables to make arbritrary connections of resources, applications, and services. But what is with the operating system and the other parts of the operating environment or operational environment themselves? Once again, no SDI and therefore also

• no telco cloud, carrier cloud, etc..

Mobility, security, Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) or pervasive computing, including the field of Internet of Things (IoT), Collaboration and Communication (Co² or CoCo), and so on.
Resilience, fault tolerance, trustworthiness, reliability, high availability, safety, security, etc. are merely realized by an on-the-fly N+1 and pre-emptive high availability approach, but no capability-based, no validated and verified, no blockchain, etc. technologies, and on-the-fly N+1 approach requires features of our Evoos.
Obviously, we have here our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our activities done in the fields of software technology, UML, and ontology at that time once again
A brain has the basic properties and functionalities of

• neurons, and
• thoughts and memory,

Evoos has the basic properties and functionalities of

and also has the basic foundations and functionalities of

See the

The title of the Proposal is not Evoos but "Analyse und Entwurf eines Betriebssystems nach evolutionären und genetischen Aspekten==Analysis and Design of an Operating System According to Evolutionary and Genetic Aspects" and also describes processes in an already existing evironment, which has even reflective properties and also includes a new type of operating system, which has the properties and capability of awareness, which uniquely defines an operating environment or operational environment, and is used to describe dynamic operating environments in the field of SOA in general and SOI in particular.
A comparison with Fusion Dynamic operating environment shows, that it is basically Evoos with some more SOA, but not programming of functions beyond business processes and early Network Function Virtualization (NFV) (including Virtualized Network Function (VNF) and Cloud-native Network Function (CNF)) and Software-Defined Networking (SDN).
Also note the aspect of the evolutionary and the example about fetal monitoring.
Eventually, this is only classical stealing by

as part of cheap psychological tricks to confuse and mislead the public.

By the way:

• component, service, and application layers after the creation of the programming language Java and
• operational layer and other layers, as well as the complete system stack after the creation of our Evoos.

We quote a webpage of the Meta Group, which is about SOI, is titled "Meta Group Research - Delta Summary", and has been publicated on the 24th of April 2003:
"Defining a Service-Oriented Infrastructure Strategy
Infrastructure Strategies, Infusion: Adaptive Infrastructure Strategies
IT organizations trying to save money and yet make their infrastructure more agile must take a service-oriented approach to planning infrastructure. They must deliver a well-defined shared infrastructure service strategy that encompasses and unifies operational as well as technical "services" while reducing confusion across IT constituencies on service terminology."

Comment: Note that the agile software development method is related to microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) and more importantly with Evoos, where also mSOA has its foundations. Even non-experts should begin to view the pattern. It is all about our Evoos stolen between the years 2000 to 2006. After this period, it is all about our OS, including our Evoos as its successor, and the same entities began to steal our OS.

We quote a webpage of the company Capgemini, which is about SOI and titled "Orchestrating Virtualized Components", and has been publicated before or on the 6th of May 2006:
"Service Orientation provides significant advantages for IT Infrastructure services. The main benefits are increased utilisation of individual resources (meaning less cost) and increased service levels as applications do not depend on the availability of any individual resource, but may use any one resource available in a pool.
The IT Infrastructure Technologies available today provide a full stack of options to deliver an end-to-end Service-Oriented service. Each service within this domain can be virtualized via Schedulers and the required number of resources constituting a service can be managed via a highly automated provisioning process, ensuring standard quality and consistent behaviour of the Infrastructure Services. This applies to Servers, Storage, Networks, Directory Services, Databases: in fact for each component of the IT Infrastructure.

A Roadmap for SOI
Capgemini deploys a three-step model to bring the benefits of a Service-Oriented Infrastructure to an organization:

Maturity
Build Awareness
The SOI Maturity Scan benchmarks an organization's IT infrastructure against best-in-class implementations. The development of SOI requires an organization to move from heterogeneous Infrastructure components to a Standardization phase, through to Industrialisation of the Lifecycle Management before a fully Service-Oriented - virtualized - Infrastructure can be deployed.
Capgemini works with alliance partners Cisco, HP, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle to develop and maintain a matrix of typical implementations of services in each of these 4 stages.

SOI Strategy
[...]

SOI Design & Build
Make It Real
The Infrastructure Design Framework (IDF) covers the full development life cycle for generic ICT Infrastructure platforms and services. The Infrastructure domain consists of seven Technology Areas: IDF-Server, IDF-Network, IDF-Storage, IDF-Middleware, IDF-Security, IDF-System Management and an overarching area: IDF-Integration. Together these provide the building blocks for all Shared Components of an ICT organization. The Infrastructure Design Framework can de used as a stand-alone method for Infrastructure Solution Development, starting with a requirements capturing phase. The IDF could also be used following an Architecture project using the Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF). In that case the Analysis and High Level Design phases will be significantly shortened. In both cases the Infrastructure Design Framework ends with a working and well operated solution."

Comment:
What makes this highly dubious is the 3sup3; Theme.
Howsoever, we have here lifecycle and overarching integration, and for sure it sounds similar, because it is what we did before (e.g. software technology, software architecture, creation of the Unified Modeling Language (UML), and ontology). Not funny.

We quote a document of the industry consortium Open Group, which is about SOA, including SOI and SOCCI, is titled "SOA Source Book", and has been publicated on the 19th of August 2011:
"[...]
This is Edition 7 of the SOA Source Book. Edition 1, published by Van Haren in April 2009, and also available on the web, contained interim material only. Since it appeared, The Open Group has published five SOA Standards, two SOA Guides, and three SOA White Papers. These have been included in successive editions of the Source Book as they appeared, replacing much of the original interim material.
[...]

Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure (SOCCI) Framework - Extending SOI to SOCCI
SOI and SOA RA Layer Mapping illustrates the mapping of various Service-Oriented Infrastructure (SOI) layers with the layers represented within the SOA Reference Architecture (SOA RA). In particular, the services realized within the SOI directly enable the Operational Systems Layer of the SOA RA.
Cloud computing puts new demands on the IT infrastructure and management thereof. It requires an abstract approach to the operational environment. A cloud computing provider cannot any longer tailor its environment for each subscriber. It means that instead of a physical device, cloud computing offers an abstraction of a server, file system, storage, network, database, etc. Moreover, increasing providers' profitability and maximizing the utilization of resources requires multi-tenancy, dynamic allocation of resources, and metering with charge-back.
At the same time, subscribers expect to see implementation of a utility model since they want to allocate resources on-demand and pay exactly for their usage while being able to sustain their operations, much like the electric bill. Hence, new infrastructure should be agile and elastic and create an illusion of infinite computing resources available on-demand. While SOI did not offer the whole spectrum of the characteristics desired, it became an enabler for what came to be known as Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure (SOCCI). SOCCI can be defined as service-oriented, utility-based, manageable, scalable on-demand infrastructure that supports essential cloud characteristics, service, and deployment models. In other words, SOCCI describes the essentials for implementing and managing an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) environment.
Architecturally, SOCCI is a foundation of SOI and the cloud - SOCCI is SOI Adoption for Cloud - with a focus on requirements, such as metering, chargeback, or virtual management.
SOCCI is based on SOI's ability to leverage virtualization technology and expose infrastructure services while preserving all SOI properties. However, cloud added new characteristics which simply weren't always necessary in the case of SOI. [...]
[...] SOI [...] Managed via system admin. and/or API or some automation [...]"

Comment:
The Service-Oriented Architecture Reference Architecture (SOA RA) was publicated in November 2011 or on the 5th of December 2011. (The Open Group website names both dates for its document C119.)
The Service-Oriented Cloud Computing Infrastructure (SOCCI) Framework was publicated on the 6th of December 2011.
Surprinsingly, this also shows more inconsistences between the publication date of the SOA Source Book in August 2011, which includes the

Maybe older materials exist, but then the given references to said publications are wrong in every respect.
We also have the opinion that the Service-Oriented Architecture Ontology Version 1.0 publicated on the 25th of October 2010 and Version 2.0 publicated in April 2014 infringes our copyright, because our OS

• foundation of mSOA provided with our Evoos,
• Semantic World Wide Web (SWWW) standards and technologies (see the webpage Introduction of the website of OntoLinux), which comprises
  • ontologies and ontology-based technologies,
  • Semantic Service-Oriented technologies (SSOx) not already based on our Evoos, and therefore also SOx, specifically SOA and Semantic Service-Oriented Architecture (SSOA) and also SOI and Semantic Service-Oriented Infrastructure (SSOI),

  and

• Business Process Modeling Language (BPML), which is directly related to the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) referenced in relation to the SOA Ontology Version 2.0,

and

so that the SOA Ontology is at least conceptually based on our OS and reproduces copyrighted parts of our OS in an edited way respectively took our OS as a source of inspiration and a blueprint, which is a causal link with our OS. Qed.
Therefore, the whole SOA Source Book is no prior art and the SOCCI is also based on our OS, as shown here. Nevertheless, they might give some useful informations.
{implication might go too far} The transition from

after the presentation of our OS and the related explanations by the Open Group and other entities provide once again more evidences that our original and unique OS, including our Evoos, has been taken as blueprint, which shows a causal link with them.
Another implication is that the field of SOI is outdated and only relevant for historical and legal reasons.

According to the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), the SOA Ontology and its copyright have to be handed over to our SOPR or removed, if the members of the Open Group industry consortium want to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of any part of our OS, which is obviously the case.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject SOI:
"Service Oriented Infrastructure or SOI provides a system for describing information technology (IT) infrastructure as a service. The underlying principles go back to, among others, Mainframe and LDAP technologies[citation needed]; SOI provides a framework or mindset for making business benefits measurable.

Overview
A service-oriented infrastructure provides a foundation for IT services. A concept initially developed by Intel discussed three domains for service-orientation:

This article covers the infrastructure domain of service-orientation. Key aspects of service-oriented infrastructure include industrialisation and virtualisation, providing IT infrastructure services via a pool of resources (web servers, application servers, database servers, servers, storage instances) instead of through discrete instances.
While the IT industry has widely adopted service-oriented architecture (SOA), service-oriented infrastructure or SOI has lagged in its adoption. This has changed with the availability of SOI solutions like application-server grids, database grids, Virtualised servers and virtualised storage.
A joint effort between HP, Cisco and Capgemini has resulted[when?] in the following definition for a service-oriented infrastructure:[citation needed]

The term SOI also has a broader usage, which includes all configurable infrastructure resources, such as compute, storage, and networking hardware and software, to support the running of applications. Consistent with the objectives for SOA, SOI facilitates the reuse and dynamic allocation of necessary infrastructure resources. The development of SOI solutions focuses around the service characteristics envisaged. The service characteristics provide the basis both for the development as well as for the delivery of the services. The notion of a fully managed life cycle of the services envisages a continuum that contrasts with the event-based deployment of IT infrastructure that provided discrete silos of IT infrastructure for specific applications.
A SOI exposes a set of fundamental services, such as mobility or security, which form a part of the network environment, that can deliver resource sharing, application integration, and communications and collaboration: ubiquitously, scalably, reliably, sustainably, maintainably and cost-effectively. In order to ensure each service provides a standard response to a standard invocation at all times, the service must include a control process. The control process measures both the demand and the supply of a capability and automatically updates the capability, if required.
In April 2007 The Open Group started a project on SOI[1] within its SOA Working Group. This SOI project aims to develop more common understanding around SOI between the members of The Open Group. [But the given reference dated 2006 leads to the webpage respectively HTML variant of the Edition 7 of the document titled "SOA Source Book" and publicated on the 19th of August 2011 with the Edition 1 publicated on the 7th of April 2009 (or 1st of May 2009). One of the usual number twisters from 2009 to 2006, that we have seen before on such fabricated webpages to mislead the public.]

Orchestrating virtualised components
Service orientation provides significant advantages for IT infrastructure services. The main benefits include increased utilisation of individual resources (meaning lower total cost of ownership) and increased service-levels as applications do not depend on the availability of any individual resource, but may use any one resource available in the pool.
As of 2009, available IT infrastructure technologies provide a full stack of options to deliver an end-to-end service-oriented service.[citation needed] Schedulers can virtualise each service within this domain, and a highly automated provisioning process can manage the required number of resources constituting a service, thus ensuring standard quality and consistent behaviour of the infrastructure services. This applies to servers, storage, networks, directory services, databases: in fact to every component of the IT infrastructure."

Comment:
It is just another fabricated webpage related to our OS.
The initial version has been publicated on the 22nd of November 2006 and merely quoted the first two sentences of the webpage titled "Orchestrating Virtualized Components" of the third company (see above).
Citations are missing all over the webpage, though some contents can be found in the material quoted in this clarification.
References are either not correct or just do not work:

Eventually, only relevant is the truly original prior art publicated between the middle of December 1999 and the end of October 2006. The rest came with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) before and our Ontologic System (OS) after this period.

Many reasons for actions can be explained (e.g. cloud computing, mSOA, operating system-level virtualization or containerization, open this and that projects (e.g. Open Group, Data Center operating system (DCos), network slicing, Open Network Automation Platform (ONAP), 5G Next Generation (5G NG), and so on), but eventually not sufficient prior art has been presented for the very foundations in contrast to more evidences for fraud, overall strategy, and responsibility, and therefore for our legal standpoint and position.

But as the list of some of the missing items shows, the overall legal situation will not change. Quite contrary, we got more evidence for the espionage and other fraudulent activities conducted in the said period between the years 1999 to 2006, which shows once again that our Evoos was the subject of much more stealing at that time. But due to the reasons that our Evoos belongs to the oeuvre of C.S., is the predecessor of our OS, and is integrated in our OS, the basic properties could not be stolen in this way, which has been worked out in the clarifications referenced above and in other related clarification.

Obviously, there were more entities, that have stolen essential parts of our Evoos besides the companies Motorola and Microsoft, as can be seen here with the companies IBM, HP respectively HPE, Cisco, Oracle, and Capgimini, as well as the members of the Open Group industry consortium, including the companies Intel, Huawei, Fujitsu, and Philips, and also the government agencies U.S.American Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But as in the cases of the two latter companies, they do not present sufficient prior art.
It seems to be that entities have finally found out by spying in the end of the year 2005 (see also the Semantic SOA discussed at the end of 2005 and the so-called Cognitive Grid publicated in March 2006, and also our related investigations), what we were creating, researching and developing, and realizing all the years and short before publicating at the end of October 2006. But they only expected our Evoos with SOx, but not our OS, and also have not understood the whole Evoos. And they have not expected that the Evoos could even be improved, extended, and developed further, and the Evoos and the OS are connected as one overall work of art as part of the oeuvre of C.S. and therefore are not just unprotected systems, but copyrighted.

Service-Oriented (SO) was solely concerned with Business Process (BP) by others, but not by us with our Evoos and our OS. This is changing, as can be seen with for example carrier cloud and 5G NG.
no reflection in operating environment,
no complete automation, which came with or OS and later copied as SOCCI,
model for services, but no ontology and no Semantic SOA. There is a SOA Ontology in relation to the SOA Source Book of the Open Group, but this is no prior art at all, because publicated years after the presentation of our OS.
life cycle but no Quality Management with control loop. There is an image with a small control loop in the SOA Source Book of the Open Group, but this is no prior art at all, because publicated years after the presentation of our OS. That is added to SOI with the ONAP for example.
agile, mSOA, and DevOps
end-to-end service orchestration, network slicing, PNF/VNF lifecycle management, PNF integration, and network optimization for for example 5G Next Generation and the so-called 5G Blueprint of ONAP
Once again we can see, that the white, yellow, or red line has to be drawn already where operating system-level virtualization or containerization, mSOA, and grid computing are integrated, which is what is one of the foundation of cloud, edge, and fog computing. But the recent development in these fields show even better that it is only about our OS with its integrating OS Architecture (OSA).

Some missing items and fields not covered by stolen art, which were also listed in relation to the other cases of investigations:

• Augmented Reality (AR),
• Augmented Virtuality (AV),
• Virtual Reality (VR), and
• Mixed Reality (MR),

• Augmented Reality (AR) cloud,
• Augmented Virtuality (AV) cloud,
• Virtual Reality (VR) cloud, and
• Mixed Reality (MR) cloud,

We could go on and list hundred or more items and fields.
The details in the listed fields do not matter and in many cases have been worked out and documented on this website of OntomaX in the past.

One has this dubious prior art and one has that dubious prior art, one has even prior art about dynamic and integrating operational environment. But virtually all relevant prior art have taken our Evoos as blueprint and only after the presentation of our OS all those dubious prior art have been integrated by taking those relevant prior art related to Evoos as loophole and our OS as blueprint. As we always say, there is a point where a causal link with our OS, including our Evoos, cannot be avoided anymore and the whole strategy and house of cards collapse.

The societal compromise for opening our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoscope (Os), OntoVerse (OV), and so on, and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS

The alternative is a clear cut, which also results in no opening, no licensing, etc., and eventually no improvement of the legal situation for fraudulent entities.

Companies have to admit by legally valid signature that they

• cross license Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs),
• transfer certain IPRs, and
• sell certain businesses in whole or in part,

which are based on our OS, including our Evoos and our Os, under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions,

or stop immediately to perform or reproduce or both our original and unique artworks and further intellectual properties included in the oeuvre of C.S. and attributed to the achievements of our corporation in whole or in part.

14.October.2020

Comment of the Day

"It is an Ontoscope. And it always was an Ontoscope."

16.October.2020

Ontonics Further steps

Due to general economical (too big for present airline business) and particular biological (too few passengers in present pandemic) reasons, we have the prospect to get 10s if not more than 100 of airliners of the model Airbus A380, that are retired, parked, or mothballed.

All of our designs, which were created by our business unit Style of Speed (SoS), have matured over the last year to a degree where real research and development work is required next.
The plan is to let SoS transform the airliners into the following variants:

We are also working on the integration of other new technologies and capabilities, which can be used for other aircrafts as well.

Furthermore, we are also working on the business processes for this new transportation of air transport. Specific apects are

17.October.2020

King Smiley Further steps

Some entities might have already guessed that we are interested in the Henry Ford Estate in Southampton, Long Island, New York, U.S.A.. The real estate is really fine as is the case with the asking price.
We already worked on it in the last year, but we have two issues related to its location. Therefore, we are also working on alternatives.

We also worked on some properties in addition to the known ones inclusive the architectures and the legal matters in

• New York, New York,
• Los Angeles, California,
• Palm Beach, Florida,
• Aspen, Colorado,
• Telluride, Colorado, and
• Vail, all Colorado,
• O'ahu, Hawaii, U.S.A., as well as

• Bahamas and
• some countries,

• Roma==Rome, Lazio,
• Venezia==Venice, Veneto,
• Verona, Veneto==Venetian,
• Fierenze==Florence, Toscana, and
• some other places,

• Paris, Île-de-France,
• Aquitaine, and
• Côte d'Azure,

• Amsterdam and
• some other places,

• Guernsey, Channel Islands,
• London,
• Cornwall,
• Scotland,

In the last two years, we must have learned about all larger real estates, which are available on the market and in several cases off the market worldwide.
As sad it is, specifically interesting is the situation with the hotels and resorts worldwide at this time.

Btw.: C.S. is examing the presidency of The Bahamas. :D The U.S.A. does not want that, so no permanent residency and related taxes. :(

18.October.2020

17:01 and 17:03 UTC+2
SOPR #305

*** Work in progress ***
Topics
We have collected the various notes made in the last days and make additions where useful and required in relation to the following topics:

Legal matter [Rigths]
As others and we already noted in the last past, the two pillars of democracy are said to be truth and trust.
But too many politicians and journalists, and also many scientists take not telling the truth and trust as their working mass and perform freakshows, which are also called $#!tshows by others.

Needless to say, this goes on in virtuality and therefore the usual entities want to get the power of control of virtuality in addition to reality.
We anticipated this, specifically by the fraud conducted in relation to the old Internet and the old World Wide Web (WWW), that entities will try to act in the same fraudulent way with our Ontologic System (OS), which is already replacing the Internet and the WWW. But our OS was created by C.S. as an alternative, to keep up truth and trust.

In this regard, we already explained

The best example are

which are based on the blockchain technique and our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT).
Ironically, the blockchain technique and our DLT were immediately utilized for illegal activities, such as for example the

before even experts understood their potential.
But critics, populists, and other persons, who love discussions, dictatorships or autocracies, ... But the problem is that they are those entities, who have been convicted of destroying truth and trust again and again.
But our OS is exactly the same, but in the opposite direction

These are some of the reasons why we even make the politically incorrect statement: Our rights. Our OSOs. Our rules.
For sure, such a statement shows that the situation is not democratic, but we

Unteachable persons or anybody else, who does not want to comply, must still follow the other national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, which means reduction of the allowance for the performance and reproduction, and even exclusion of performance and reproduction. For this reason we even created the 5th (old Internet) and 6th (old Dark Net) rings and related ID spaces of the management structure of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV). But the rest of around 95% of the whole world population is already following us since more than 2 decades.

Legal matter [National security]
A prohibition of a certain foreign technology from a country must be done honestly and consistently and its outcome must be logical and predictable. If a framework is applied in this way, then one can understand the rules of the game and maneuver within those rules. Haphazard actions, that fail that test, will only invite retaliation against domestic companies.

Accordingly, at least one local company will become our trusted facility, technology, good, and service contractor, supplier, and provider, that is responsible for hosting and all local user data and securing associated computer systems to ensure national security requirements are fully satisfied (see the section Legal matter [National security] of the issue SOPR #302 of the 20th of September 2020).

Legal matter [Standardization]
Every standards organization, standards body, Standards Developing Organization (SDO), or Standards Setting Organization (SSO), that develops and sets a standard, which is based on one of the ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically our OS and our Os, has to become a member and licensee of our SOPR to get the legally required agreement concerning the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR). Without this agreement a standard has to be viewed as legally void in whole or in part.

Digital rights [Blanket data retention]
The blanket data retention is not permitted in the European Union (EU) in the ordinary way, but still possible in a societal, legal, and suitable way with our work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S.. In fact, the general solution is already utilized for the

See for example the section Digital rights [Data protection and data security] in the issue #303 of the 24th of September 2020, the section Infrastructure [Electric Government] above, and the issues, that discuss our IDAMS and digital passport, as well as our Healthcare 4.0 subsystem and platform.

Infrastructure
We would like to recall in relation to facilities and technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications and devices), and services (e.g. capability and operational) like for example

• Air Traffic Management (ATM) System (ATMS),
• Airspace System of the Next Generation, and
• Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) System (UTMS),

that there will be no debate about the demands to

Infrastructure [Electronic Government (EGov)]
At the heart of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), our Ontologic System (OS), and our Ontoscope (Os) is natural sense processing or Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP), specifically Nautral Language Processing (NLP), on the basis of the field of SoftBionics (SB), including Artificial Intelligence (AI), (deep) Machine Learning (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)), and Neural Information Processing (NIP), as well as statistics, but also Quality Management (QM) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), incuding Computer-Aided technologies (CAx).

The joint (Neural) Machine Translator ((N)MT), automated translation, or electronic translation system of the member states of the European Union (EU) and used by EU delegates and most potentially international journalist and guests respectively the citizens or even the worldwide public

• evolutionary and lifecycle management,
• ANN,
• constructivism (e.g. Piaget),
• dynamic learning,
• reflection and reflection of user ("custom MT systems are trained on the customer's own data"),

• Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and
• Ontologic System Components (OSC), and also
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),
• ensured consistent terminology and "terminology integration", and
• controlled and fine-tuned output quality,
• conversational agent and assistant,
• "Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning have powered an evolution in neural machine translation (NMT)",
• "data security and confidentiality",
• "fluent, humanlike real-time translations" based on Natural Language Processing (NLP),
• "plugins for [Computer-Aided technologies (CAx), specifically Computer-Aided Translation (]CAT[)] tools" and "CAT integration",
• "cloud and on-premise hosting",
• etc.,

But according to the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, members and licensees must grant the SOPR unrestricted access to raw signals and data. If this is not possible, then our SOPR must be granted unrestricted access to models and algorithms, which means eventually unrestricted access to the translator presidencymt.eu.

Furthermore, if the (N)MT) becomes part of the governance and government, then it is part of the related Electronic Government (EGov) subsystem and platform of the infrastructure of our SOPR.
But according to the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, the establishment of joint ventures between federal and public entities and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation is mandatory in such cases, which means eventually the establishment of a joint venture between the member states of the European Union (EU) or the European Commission (EC) and our corporation, but not with other companies, specifically not with those companies, that helped with the research and development, and also the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the (N)MT, is obligatory for the management of the (N)MT.
By the way: We are observing one of the responsible companies since several years, because it is highly dubious in general and is implementing this part of our OS in particular.

In short: The new joint (Neural) Machine Translation ((N)MT) goes straight to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), for sure

According to the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR

If eligible, then the other companies will become main contractors, suppliers, and service providers of our SOPR, whereby companies in the role of the contractors, suppliers, and providers have to sign contracts with our SOPR in the role of the principal.

If the AoA and the ToS are not fulfilled completely after the infrastructure of our SOPR has been put into operation, then sufficiently many, clearly discussed and announced, and therefore very well known measures are available to enforce all of our rights.

Infrastructure [eXchange]
Because the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (HKSAR) has become too insecure and therefore is not eligilbe to become one of the largest Asian Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) eXchange (OntoX or OX) points and other certain endeavours anymore, we are looking for an alternative location to build up (see also the section Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Stock exchange] below).

For this reason, we have asked the public for suggestions in relation to an existing or new alpha world city.

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Stock exchange]
We decided that as part of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) the town New York City, New York, U.S.America, will remain the largest stock exchange. But we do not know where to build up the second largest stock exchange anymore, because the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (HKSAR) has become too insecure and therefore is not eligilbe for this exchange, a clearing house, and other certain endeavours anymore.
Therefore, we are looking for an alternative location to build up the second largest stock exchange worldwide (see also the section Infrastructure [eXchange] above).

Healthcare 4.0
Our centralized data storage on the basis of Distributed Systems (DSs) is legal.
But to solve the last and hence all legal issues with national laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements related to data protection or privacy, and data security Ontonics will establish a worldwide health insurance. It is that simple.

Takeover of companies
We would like to give the additional information that the criterias for the selection of takeover candidates include

But we have concluded, that we also introduced sufficiently powerful regulations, so that we should be able to keep them in check anyway, so that a legal elimination by takeover might not be required.

Further steps
Companies, national governments, and international commissions have been invited by C.S. and our corporation to become members and licensees of our SOPR and enjoy our OS under absolutely FRANDAC terms and conditions.
But conspiring companies, national governments, and international commissions will enjoy a very hard crack down, if the SOPR's

Specifically in the F.R.Germany and European Union there will be no some kind of a troika, for example between the Deutsche Telekom, SAP, and our corporation. But the companies have the option to become business units of our corporation through takeover by us (3 to 1; see also the section akeover of companies above).

Der Kompromiss ist bereits die Öffnung und Lizensierung von unserem OS. Die meisten Regel sind nur hinzugefügt worden, weil weiterhin versucht wurde und wird die Kontrolle über unser Eigentum und andere Rechte von uns zu erlangen.

19.October.2020

Ontonics Superstructure #23

Totally incompentent entities still claim that our solutions would be science fiction everytime when we disclose details about them at all and they are in need of such solutions. But not surprisingly, in the moment they found out how to steal them or damage the reputation of C.S. and our corporation, our solutions are no science fiction anymore.
Howsoever, we would like to share some more informations about our Weather Control System (WCS), which matured over the last decade.

In former issues we already

The images below show the sources of inspiration and basic concepts related to this part of our WCS

for better understanding and therefore educational reason and pro bono publico==for the public good.

© Michael Militello and Amar Shah, Paolo Venturella and Cosimo Scotucci, and Andree Wallin and NBC Universal→Universal Pictures

There exist other approaches for earth cooling and cloud seeding.
The only known functions of these concepts are that the

We integrated them all with

But our WCS cools done the deep sea and the air without clouds and other kinds of shields, and giant constructions, so that the sunlight still reaches the surface of the earth and the whole endeveour is realizable at all. Interested persons can guess why our approach is much more effective and hence superior to cloud seeding and a giant heat pipe.

We estimated that each WC station costs around 100 to 200 million U.S. Dollar without the other parts and the first deployment should comprise 100 WC stations of this type and be located at the east, west, and south coasts of the U.S.A. (75 WC stations) and in the Meditarian Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea and the Aegan Sea, and the west and north coast of Portugal Spain, and France (25 WC stations), which are the areas with the highest CO2 concentration, as part of the related projects of our SOPR, SSUM, and SWC. Further deployments are straigthforward, for example at the east, west, and south coasts of Denmark (Greenland :D) and Canada followed by the coast around Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America.
As shown with calculations related to other WC projects having much less and smaller parts, and according to our calculations related to this part of our WCS, we can already do a lot with at least 1000 WC stations.
It has also to be noted once again that this is only one of several solutions of the overall WCS and a very complex and expensive overall system, which again are based or integrated with our Superstructure, and therefore discussing, copying, stealing, and awarding single parts of our WCS makes no sense.
We will explain more in public when the right time has come.

Please do not capture CO2 and bury it in the ground or pump it in liquid form into the deep sea. Just do not touch it at all and let others and us, the true experts, do the job.

Btw.:

24.October.2020

00:13, 01:55, and 03:25 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

*** Work in progress - better structure and explanation ***
Once again, we had the impression that vehicle manufacturers seek a partnership with our corporation. Therefore the question is, what could be possible as part of a partnership.
First of all,

This contractual relationship requires the compliance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR, which are regulating the

• Ontologic System©™ (OS) (Ontologics®),
• AutoSemantic™ extension package,
• Superstructure™,
• Hyper Connectivity™ System (HCS)
  • SpeechCloud™,
  • MapCloud™,
  • AutoCloud™,
  • BikeCloud™,
  • PlaneCloud™,
  • ShipCloud™,
  • AutoMapCloud™,
  • CarCloud™,
  • RobotCloud™,
  • DroneCloud™,
  • etc.,
• Ontoscope©™ (Os)
  • Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI™ or IWhI), also known as PC on Wheels™, PC with Wheels™, Mobile Device on Wheels™, Mobile Device with Wheels™, Smartphone on Wheels™, Smartphone with Wheels™, and also Ontoscope on Wheels™, and Ontoscope with Wheels™, and
  • Integrated Winged Intelligence™ (IWI™ or IWiI), also known as PC with Wings™, Mobile Device with Wings™, Smartphone with Wings™, and also Ontoscope with Wings™,
• 0 Gravity™,
• Hover™
  • Hovercity©™ and
  • Hoverland©™,
• Unobtainium and fantasy materials
  • Powerinium©™,
  • Flexinium©™,
  • Fabrinium©™,
  • Paperinium©™, and
  • Hoverinium©™,
• and much more,

• Active Components™ (AC),
• electric energy storage technologies,
• technologies and vehicles based on
  • 0 Gravity™,
  • Hover™, and
  • Hoverinium©™,
• Raylev™,
• System Automobile™ and Drivable Computing™ based on
  • AC,
  • IWI or IWhI, and
  • HCS,
• System Aircraft™ and Flyable Computing™ based on
  • AC,
  • IWI or IWiI, and
  • HCS,
• and much more,

• infrastructure of our SOPR,
• Superstructure of our Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM) as part of the infrastructure of our SOPR,
• subsystems and platforms of the infrastructure of our SOPR
  • Traffic Management System (TMS) of the Next Generation and Intelligent TMS of our SSUM
    • Air Traffic Management (ATM) System (ATMS),
    • Airspace System of the Next Generation, and
    • Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) System (UTMS),
  • Hyper Connectivity™ System (HCS),

among other AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S. and exclusively exploited by our HighTech Office Ontonics™ and our societies.

Furthermore, vehicle manufacturers could become

• electric energy generation, storage, and recovery technologies become the de facto industry standards,
• Hover technologies become the de facto industry standards,
• System Automobile™ and System Aircraft™ platforms become the de facto industry standards, and
• special parts, components, modules, subsystems, and devices based on our technologies (e.g. our electric energy generation, storage, and recovery technologies, and Hover technologies), are sourced from our plants exclusively.

In this way, vehicle manufacturers would

• termination of mimicking C.S. and our corporation,
• payment of damage compensations for infringements of the rights of C.S. and our corporation of more than 21 years, and
• restoration of the initial situationof C.S. and our corporation as much as possible,

More is not negotiable, because

26.October.2020

19:09 and 27:43 UTC+2
SOPR #306

*** Work in progress - better explanations ***
Topics
We have collected the various notes made in the last days and make additions where useful and required in relation to the following topics:

Legal matter [Mimicking of SOPR]
One of the main reasons for opening our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs), and allowing and licensing their performance and reproduction as part of an out-of-court agreement is to stop the mimicking of C.S. and our corporation, including our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
Two of the primary goals of our SOPR are to

But the prohibited mimicking of our SOPR can be done by an entity in various ways, such as for example

• technology, system, and platform,
• device,
• superapp,
• service,
• economic system,
• etc.,

In particular, an entity, including a member and licensee of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), is not allowed to interfere in or with, or squeeze itself into a relationship between (other) members and licensees of our SOPR and our SOPR by any own proprietary means based on our OSC and our OsC, because such an action damages the goals and even threatens the integrity of our SOPR.

In general, the market regulators and antitrust authorities always have to act in all cases of monopoly abuse. But due to the reasons that antitrust procedures of federal agencies are

which is by far too slow and inadequate for our interests, we introduced regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR to

In the following, we discuss the examplary platforms

in more detail.

Miniservice platform or superapp
Due to the reasons that

we took a look at this subject matter asking us whether the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR are already sufficient to handle any resulting effect, which has the potential to damage the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR.
Eventually, we concluded that the AoA and the ToS demand that a service provider has to register a service and provide its Application Programming Interface (API) to the service broker or mediator of our SOPR. And because a miniservice is a service, this requirement holds for them and their related miniapps and superapps as well.

Electronic Commerce (EC) platform
Giving another provider the permission to open an app store or another shop in a proprietary economic system (e.g. Google Android and One Handset Alliance and Amazon) based on our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) does not avoid that a Software as a Service (SaaS or SWaaS) provider, which is the more general classification for an app store operator, has to hook said app store into the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of the infrastructure of our SOPR.
In addition, our SOPR has to get unrestricted access to the raw signals and data.

Mobility, transportation, and logistics platform
Providing a solution in the fields of mobility, transportation, and logistics, for example for applications and services in the fields of

• taxi business,
• ride sharing,
• vehicle sharing, parking, and charging,

requires that a service provider has to register such a service and provide its Application Programming Interface (API) to the service broker or mediator of our SOPR.

Legal matter [Licensing of further Intellectual Properties (IPs)]
We have discussed the matter already in the past {links missing}, but due to the takeover bids of us and the partnership requests of others we had to reconsider all relevant artistical, cultural, social, political, legal, economical, and technical aspects.

At first, we recall once again that our original and unique works of art, which are titled

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

• Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI™ or IWhI), also known as PC on Wheels™, PC with Wheels™, Mobile Device on Wheels™, Mobile Device with Wheels™, Smartphone on Wheels™, Smartphone with Wheels™, and also Ontoscope on Wheels™, and Ontoscope with Wheels™, and
• Integrated Winged Intelligence™ (IWI™ or IWiI), also known as PC with Wings™, Mobile Device with Wings™, Smartphone with Wings™, and also Ontoscope with Wings™,

• Hovercity©™ and
• Hoverland©™,

• Powerinium©™,
• Flexinium©™,
• Fabrinium©™,
• Paperinium©™, and
• Hoverinium©™,

were unforeseeable and unexpected by an expert in the related fields respectively a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) at the time of their creation by C.S..

Eventually, we concluded once again that our further Intellectual Properties (IPs), which are designated

• 0 Gravity™,
• Hover™, and
• Hoverinium©™,

• AC,
• IWI™ or IWhI, and
• HCS,

• AC,
• IWI™ or IWiI, and
• HCS,

are based on, included in, or directly connected to our AWs and therefore also covered by the legal scope of our AWs, specifically when viewed as essential parts, components, modules, subsystems, and devices.

After more than 2 decades of

we consider every act and work of C.S. to be included in the oeuvre of C.S., even a trivial act and work as some kind of an objet trouvé==found object, including readymade, conceptual art, kinetic art, or whatever fits.
The out-of-court agreement and the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR demands that any work and act included in the oeuvre of C.S. is not performed and reproduced without allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of them from our societies. Any breach of this set of rules have as consequence, that an allowance for the performance and reproduction of any work and any act included in the oeuvre of C.S. will be revoked.

As an implication of this legal regulation, the legal scopes of our AWs cover our further IPs, including technologies, goods, and services, which

shift from moral right and regulations related to our OS as discussed in the earlier issues of our SORP to are copyright and regulations related to OS and became moral rights and regulations related to the rest of the whole oeuvre of C.S.

At least moral rights, which ... the realization, implementation, modification, operation, and other actions have to be based or connected to our OS with its ON, OW, and OV, OAOS, Os, and so on.

Single elements are therefore covered by our rights as parts of the overall work.
Therefore, our regulations for any performance and reproduction apply. :)
The alternative would be that we cannot license any performance and reproduction of our AWs and further IPs, but would have to

So what could be possible as part of a partnership and what are the terms and conditions?
First of all, signing the out-of-court agreement with us, and becoming members and licensees of our SOPR is required anyway. These contractual relationships require the compliance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR, which are regulating the

• infrastructure of our SOPR,
• Superstructure of our Society for Superstructure Utilization and Management (SSUM) as part of the infrastructure of our SOPR,
• subsystems and platforms of the infrastructure of our SOPR
  • Traffic Management System (TMS) of the Next Generation and Intelligent TMS of our SSUM
    • Air Traffic Management (ATM) System (ATMS),
    • Airspace System of the Next Generation, and
    • Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) System (UTMS),
  • Hyper Connectivity™ System (HCS),

among other AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S. and exclusively exploited by our HighTech Office Ontonics™ and our societies.

An item, which

and

has to be sourced from our plants exclusively or otherwise we have to manufacturer complete works exclusively.

Every single case has to be explained in detail due to its individual characteristics. We already listed above our

• technologies,
• goods, and
• services.

But several tens if not hundreds of other undisclosed works exist, which meet the requirements.

Another one of the best examples is our System Automobile. The performance and reproduction of our System Automobile are allowed and can be licensed, but some

exclusively.

Furthermore, manufacturers could become non-exclusive or exclusive

• electric energy generation, storage, and recovery technologies and Hover technologies become the de facto industry standards,
• System Automobile™ and System Aircraft™ platforms become the de facto industry standard, and
• special parts, components, modules, subsystems, and devices based on our technologies (e.g. our electric energy generation, storage, and recovery technologies, and Hover technologies), are sourced from our plants exclusively.

In this way, manufacturers would

• termination of mimicking C.S. and our corporation,
• payment of damage compensations for infringements of the rights of C.S. and our corporation of more than 21 years, and
• restoration of the initial situationof C.S. and our corporation as much as possible,

In this way, we will also retain our neutrality and will not enter an exclusive partnership with another company.

Legal matter [Media System (MS)]
We already discussed some legal aspects related to our OS and the media in the issue #295 of the 8th of August 2020.
But we also want legal certainty and our rights confirmed. Therefore, we are preparing a legal procedure, that should clarify without doubt if a creator has the right to deny a public or private entity of the media the allowance for performing and reproducing a work of art created by said creator, if said media entity has infringed the rights and attacked and damaged the goals and even threatened the integrity of said creator or an entity holding a property right for the performance and reproduction of said work of art.

Particullary, we want to find out if C.S. already has the right to prohibit the circumvention of the regulations included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) related to the media throught the utilization of special technologies (e.g. public-law broadcasting over 5G based on our Ontologic System (OS) or our Ontoscope (Os) or both, which includes significant parts of 5G Next Generation (5G NG)), platforms, devices (e.g. smartspeaker and smartdisplay based on our OS or our Os or both), applications, and services (e.g. subscription package of private media content) even if a federal media law demands the allowance for such a performance and reproduction.

Further steps [Damages, fees, and royalties]
We would like to give just a reminder to get ready for paying

so that we can begin with collecting the first 1.5 trillion U.S. Dollar on the 1st of Jan. 2021.

At least a small portion must be transfered (e.g. cash or bank wire transfer), that can be used directly for setting up businesses and accounts for the members or licensees of our SOPR.
Therefore, we expect from every industrial companies listed at a stock market, that the initial transfer of 100.000 U.S. Dollar or euro is at our disposal on the 1st of January 2021 for setting up the initial business structure of our SOPR and beginning with

as discussed and announced over the last 3 years.
And as soon as this first step has been done the transfer of the rest will begin.

27.October.2020

Style of Speed Further steps

We have configured and put together a specific Pure Electric™ propulsion system for large aircrafts, specifically airliners, comprising

In the next phase, we want to test it in a small airliner, also known as jet zero like for example a model of the aircraft manufacturer Embraer, though everything must match with the performance of the jet engine.
The adaption of an existing turbofan or fanjet has already begun by Rolls-Royce and electric motors could be provided by Siemens for the prototype. As soon as possible, our electric motors will be utilized after their anufacturing is finished.

As far as we can see, we are at least 10 lightyears ahead of the pack, longhaul electric airliners are null problemo, and therefore flying less is not needed at all for eleminating aviation emissions. But we leave it to the Karens, journalists, and Gretas to take the train or the ship instead. :)