"(5) It follows that the market processes are often incapable of ensuring fair economic outcomes with regard to core platform services. Whereas Articles 101 and 102 TFEU remain applicable to the conduct of gatekeepers, their scope is limited to certain instances of market power (e.g. dominance on specific markets) and of anticompetitive behaviour, while enforcement occurs ex post and requires an extensive investigation of often very complex facts on a case by case basis. Moreover, existing Union law does not address, or does not address effectively, the identified challenges to the well-functioning of the internal market posed by the conduct of gatekeepers, which are not necessarily dominant in competition-law terms."

See the comment to point (3) above. There is no lack of legal regulations, but a

Besides this, dominance is part of the definition of the term gatekeeper. A non-dominant gatekeeper is a contradiction, because it would be a keeper of a gate, who would low unhindered passage through said gate. That is nonsense, because in this case no gatekeeper would be required at all or would merely be a gateobserver.
It is even more ridiculous to regulate an entity, which cannot have a significant impact on the internal market, act in unfair ways, or cannot be contested by other entities due to the lack of dominance, by the regulations and obligations of the PfDMA at all. Therefore, the true reason is another one that is to get the power of control over more entities and areas of the markets than a governing body should have in a society or a community of values governed by the rule of law. Somehow, an entity should be regulated only because it exists.

"(6) [...] A number of national regulatory solutions have already been adopted or proposed to address unfair practices and the contestability of digital services or at least with regard to some of them. [...]"

Honestly, we know only three proposed solutions, which have been included in the PfDMA as well, but not require a completely new act but merely an extension or revision of the already existing competition rules or antitrust law.

"(10) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the corresponding national competition rules concerning anticompetitive multilateral and unilateral conduct as well as merger control have as their objective the protection of undistorted competition on the market. This Regulation pursues an objective that is complementary to, but different from that of protecting undistorted competition on any given market, as defined in competitionlaw terms, which is to ensure that markets where gatekeepers are present are and remain contestable and fair, independently from the actual, likely or presumed effects of the conduct of a given gatekeeper covered by this Regulation on competition on a given market. This Regulation therefore aims at protecting a different legal interest from those rules and should be without prejudice to their application."

First of all, we had the impression that acts like the PfDMA are required, because gatekeepers are considered as distortions of the competition on the market. This raises the question once again, why the already existing competition rules or antitrust law are not executed in general and extended in particular.
Also once again, we do not know how the right to exploit exclusively a work of art given by the copyright law should become contestable and fair in general and in relation to the specific situation of C.S. and our corporation in particular.
Furthermore, if the goal of the PfDMA and other acts is that markets, where gatekeepers are present, are and remain contestable and fair, then why are obligations made for the market players, specifically the gatekeepers, instead of regulations made for the market. On every common daily market in towns, a farmer is told how much the area for the stand costs and how the stand has to be constructed and so on, but nobody tells the farmer how good she or he should sell the products and also which business data and business secrets she or he has to share with customers and competitors. The same holds for other markets regardless of their sizes. In fact, it is simply an absurdity and a sign of completely misguided market regulation when successful market participants are punished because of their success.

"(12) Weak contestability and unfair practices in the digital sector are more frequent and pronounced for certain digital services than for others. This is the case in particular for widespread and commonly used digital services that

• extreme scale economies,
• very strong network effects,
• an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multi-sidedness of these services,
• lock-in effects,
• a lack of multi-homing [(connecting a host or a computer network to more than one network)] or vertical integration

are the most prevalent. Often, there is only one or very few large providers of those digital services. These providers of core platform services have emerged most frequently as gatekeepers for business users and end users with far-reaching impacts, gaining the ability to easily set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner for their business users and end users. Accordingly, it is necessary to focus only on those digital services that are most broadly used by business users and end users and where, based on current market conditions, concerns about weak contestability and unfair practices by gatekeepers are more apparent and pressing from an internal market perspective."

Once again, we do not know how the right to exploit exclusively a work of art given by the copyright law should become contestable and fair in general and in relation to the specific situation of C.S. and our corporation in particular due to the reason that to set royalties for copyrighted works of art is always to set commercial conditions and terms in a unilateral and detrimental manner.
picking out a group as well as prejudging the activities is against foundational principles of the rule of law

"(13) In particular,

all have the capacity to affect a large number of end users and businesses alike, which entails a risk of unfair business practices. They therefore should be included in the definition of core platform services and fall into the scope of this Regulation. Online intermediation services may also be active in the field of financial services, and they may intermediate or be used to provide such services as listed non-exhaustively in Annex II to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council31. In certain circumstances, the notion of end users should encompass users that are traditionally considered business users, but in a given situation do not use the core platform services to provide goods or services to other end users, such as for example businesses relying on cloud computing services for their own purposes."

Cloud computing is the wrong designation, because it is our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and cloud computing services is the wrong designation, because it is our OAOS and we hold the right to give the designation. Despite of this it should be distributed systems or distributed computing service. We highly recommend to make this substitution, because we demand such corrections.
Furthermore, operating systems and distributed systems, including what is wrongly called cloud computing, eventually means our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), including Evoos as the successor of Evoos. Therefore, we have here once again an evidence that these acts are focused on our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs), and due to the very special legal situation, we do have a last word on this legal matter in certain circumstances.

"(14) A number of other ancillary services, such as identification or payment services and technical services which support the provision of payment services, may be provided by gatekeepers together with their core platform services. As gatekeepers frequently provide the portfolio of their services as part of an integrated ecosystem to which third-party providers of such ancillary services do not have access, at least not subject to equal conditions, and can link the access to the core platform service to take-up of one or more ancillary services, the gatekeepers are likely to have an increased ability and incentive to leverage their gatekeeper power from their core platform services to these ancillary services, to the detriment of choice and contestability of these services."

Here we have also the IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS), the Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), and other subsystems and platforms, and also the infrastructure and Ontologic Economic System (OES) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

"(15) The fact that a digital service qualifies as a core platform service in light of its widespread and common use and its importance for connecting business users and end users does not as such give rise to sufficiently serious concerns of contestability and unfair practices. It is only when a core platform service

• a significant impact in the internal market and
• an entrenched and durable position,

  or by a provider

• that will foreseeably have such a position in the near future,

that such concerns arise. Accordingly, the targeted set of harmonised rules laid down in this Regulation should apply only to undertakings designated on the basis of these three objective criteria, and they should only apply to those of their core platform services that individually constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users"

Picking out a group as well as prejudging an activity is against foundational legal principles and the rule of law.

"(17) [...] Therefore, a provider of a core platform service should be presumed to have a significant impact on the internal market where it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States and where either its group turnover realised in the EEA is equal to or exceeds a specific, high threshold or the market capitalisation of the group is equal to or exceeds a certain high absolute value. For providers of core platform services that belong to undertakings that are not publicly listed, the equivalent fair market value above a certain high absolute value should be referred to. [...] A high EEA group turnover in conjunction with the threshold of users in the Union of core platform services reflects a relatively strong ability to monetise these users. A high market capitalisation relative to the same threshold number of users in the Union reflects a relatively significant potential to monetise these users in the near future. This monetisation potential in turn reflects in principle the gateway position of the undertakings concerned. [...] Market capitalisation can also be reflective of the expected future position and effect on the internal market of the providers concerned, notwithstanding a potentially relatively low current turnover. [...]"

Honestly, we only know one core platform service provider that is a gatekeeper not publicly listed. But we would really like to know how high the fair market value of our corporation is, which exclusively manages and exploites the works of art created by C.S. with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

"(26) A particular subset of rules should apply to those providers of core platform services that are foreseen to enjoy an entrenched and durable position in the near future. The same specific features of core platform services make them prone to tipping: once a service provider has obtained a certain advantage over rivals or potential challengers in terms of scale or intermediation power, its position may become unassailable and the situation may evolve to the point that it is likely to become durable and entrenched in the near future. Undertakings can try to induce this tipping and emerge as gatekeeper by using some of the unfair conditions and practices regulated in this Regulation. In such a situation, it appears appropriate to intervene before the market tips irreversibly."

Extending ex post rules with ex ante rules is a no-go.
For example, in the section Legal matter of the issue SOPR #296 of the 9th of August 2020 we said that we are allowed to grow our businees until the market regulator shows an infringement of the antitrust law. The PfDMA now says ex ante rules apply. How clever (not really).

"(34) The combination of these different mechanisms for imposing and adapting obligations should ensure that the obligations do not extend beyond observed unfair practices, while at the same time ensuring that new or evolving practices can be the subject of intervention where necessary and justified. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of a regulatory dialogue with gatekeepers to tailor those obligations that are likely to require specific implementing measures in order to ensure their effectiveness and proportionality."

Everywhere, we can only read wishy washy blah blah blah. Somehow, we do have the impression that the EC does not want to regulate the market, but get the power of control over companies acting at the market. That is not a law or act, but a rule-based regulation without rules to act capriciously and arbitrarily respectively despotically.

"(35) The obligations laid down in this Regulation are necessary to address identified public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result, having regard to need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices."

We already said above, that a new act is not required at all, but only applying and executing the already existing competition or antitrust law.

"(37) Because of their position, gatekeepers might in certain cases restrict the ability of business users of their online intermediation services to offer their goods or services to end users under more favourable conditions, including price, through other online intermediation services. Such restrictions have a significant deterrent effect on the business users of gatekeepers in terms of their use of alternative online intermediation services, limiting inter-platform contestability, which in turn limits choice of alternative online intermediation channels for end users. To ensure that business users of online intermediation services of gatekeepers can freely choose alternative online intermediation services and differentiate the conditions under which they offer their products or services to their end users, it should not be accepted that gatekeepers limit business users from choosing to differentiate commercial conditions, including price. Such a restriction should apply to any measure with equivalent effect, such as for example increased commission rates or de-listing of the offers of business users."

Obviously, the PfDMA is also regulating how we perform and reproduce our OS, which is unacceptable for us and which we do not need to accept at all.
One implication is that we cannot keep the royalties as low as they were suggested. Another implication is that we cannot allow the performance and reproduction, and also modification of certain parts of our OS.

"(40) Identification services are crucial for business users to conduct their business, as these can allow them not only to optimise services, to the extent allowed under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council32, but also to inject trust in online transactions, in compliance with Union or national law. Gatekeepers should therefore not use their position as provider of core platform services to require their dependent business users to include any identification services provided by the gatekeeper itself as part of the provision of services or products by these business users to their end users, where other identification services are available to such business users"

We do require that IDentity and Access Management Systems (IDAMSs) of members and licensees of our SOPR are hooked into our IDAMS, because identity is a foundational feature of our Ontologic System and its Caliber/Calibre, obviously, and we rightly reject any modification in this regard.

"(45) In relation to cloud computing services [...]."

No marketing terms or illegal designations are allowed. See our comment to point (13) once again.

"(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users from un-installing any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications."

This improperly limits our right to exploit our AWs and further IPs.

"(51) [...] rules should be established to ensure that the rights of end users to access an open internet are not compromised by the conduct of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can also technically limit the ability of end users to effectively switch between different Internet access service providers, in particular through their control over operating systems or hardware. [...]"

There is no Internet anymore, but only our OS with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV). Correspondingly, there is no Internet Service Provider (ISP) anymore, but only Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs).

"(52) Gatekeepers may also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device may restrict access to some of the functionalities in this device, such as near-field-communication technology and the software used to operate that technology, which may be required for the effective provision of an ancillary service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third party provider of such an ancillary service. Such access may equally be required by software applications related to the relevant ancillary services in order to effectively provide similar functionalities as those offered by gatekeepers. If such a dual role is used in a manner that prevents alternative providers of ancillary services or of software applications to have access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services, this could significantly undermine innovation by providers of such ancillary services as well as choice for end users of such ancillary services. The gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to ensure access under equal conditions to, and interoperability with, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of any ancillary services by the gatekeeper."

We do not tolerate any restriction regarding the performance and reproduction, and also modification, as well as exploitation of our AWs and further IPs, specifically our Ontologic System and our Ontoscope.

"(54) Gatekeepers benefit from access to vast amounts of data that they collect while providing the core platform services as well as other digital services. To ensure that gatekeepers do not undermine the contestability of core platform services as well as the innovation potential of the dynamic digital sector by restricting the ability of business users to effectively port their data, business users and end users should be granted effective and immediate access to the data they provided or generated in the context of their use of the relevant core platform services of the gatekeeper, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format. This should apply also to any other data at different levels of aggregation that may be necessary to effectively enable such portability. It should also be ensured that business users and end users can port that data in real time effectively, such as for example through high quality application programming interfaces. Facilitating switching or multi-homing should lead, in turn, to an increased choice for business users and end users and an incentive for gatekeepers and business users to innovate."

We do not know why porting data should be immediately respectively work in real time. At least, such a real-time service should be subject to a freely negotiated customary fee.

"(55) Business users that use large core platform services provided by gatekeepers and end users of such business users provide and generate a vast amount of data, including data inferred from such use. In order to ensure that business users have access to the relevant data thus generated, the gatekeeper should, upon their request, allow unhindered access, free of charge, to such data. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by the business user, who are acting as processors of this data for the business user. Data provided or generated by the same business users and the same end users of these business users in the context of other services provided by the same gatekeeper may be concerned where this is inextricably linked to the relevant request. To this end, a gatekeeper should not use any contractual or other restrictions to prevent business users from accessing relevant data and should enable business users to obtain consent of their end users for such data access and retrieval, where such consent is required under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. Gatekeepers should also facilitate access to these data in real time by means of appropriate technical measures, such as for example putting in place high quality application programming interfaces."

This is not acceptable due to the several reasons.
On the one hand, the demand for unlimited, unrestricted, or unhindered access to raw signals and data free of charge was copied from the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR. Therefore, copyright infringement.
On the other hand, the data inferred from such use belongs to a platform service provider, but neither the business users nor the end users. Therefore, business users and end users have no right to use these properties and work results, but a platform service provider might provide the additional service to share such processed or inferred data under a contract and potentially for a freely negotiated customary fee. This is match with the proposed option that a business user can contract a third party as processor of these data for the business user.

"(56) The value of online search engines to their respective business users and end users increases as the total number of such users increases. Providers of online search engines collect and store aggregated datasets containing information about what users searched for, and how they interacted with, the results that they were served. Providers of online search engine services collect these data from searches undertaken on their own online search engine service and, where applicable, searches undertaken on the platforms of their downstream commercial partners. Access by gatekeepers to such ranking, query, click and view data constitutes an important barrier to entry and expansion, which undermines the contestability of online search engine services. Gatekeepers should therefore be obliged to provide access, on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, to these ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by consumers on online search engine services to other providers of such services, so that these third-party providers can optimise their services and contest the relevant core platform services. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by a search engine provider, who are acting as processors of this data for that search engine. When providing access to its search data, a gatekeeper should ensure the protection of the personal data of end users by appropriate means, without substantially degrading the quality or usefulness of the data."

These data are business property and business secret.
Furthermore, no other market leaders of other industry sectors have to act in this way, for example vehicle manufacturers in relation to vehicle data or drug manufacturers in relation to drug user data.
Also, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms would include the payment of some billions of U.S. Dollar or euro.

"(57) In particular gatekeepers which provide access to software application stores serve as an important gateway for business users that seek to reach end users. In view of the imbalance in bargaining power between those gatekeepers and business users of their software application stores, those gatekeepers should not be allowed to impose general conditions, including pricing conditions, that would be unfair or lead to unjustified differentiation. Pricing or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper."

This is usual competition. Maybe some responsible persons of the EC have never heard of the magic of self-regulation of the markets by supply and demand.
Furthermore, we have shown that in all cases of licensing there are no issues concerning pricing conditions.
Also, it is already sufficient if access to hardware and software would be provided (see for example (52) once again).

"(60) In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate. The regulatory dialogue to facilitate compliance with limited suspension and exemption possibilities should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability."
We do not think that this is the legal loophole, which applies for our very special legal situation respectively our proposed societal compromise. At least, it should also include the justification on the limitied ground of "other public interests".

Howsoever, we have the opinion that we do not need to follow those regulations and obligations at all due to our foundational rights and we will not engage in such a dance on eggshells for no conclusive reasons.
Howsoever, we have the opinion that we do not need to follow those regulations and obligations given with those legal acts concerning the digital sector at all due to our foundational rights and we will not engage in such a dance on eggshells for no conclusive reasons.
"(68) In order to ensure effective implementation and compliance with this Regulation, the Commission should have strong investigative and enforcement powers, to allow it to investigate, enforce and monitor the rules laid down in this Regulation, while at the same time ensuring the respect for the fundamental right to be heard and to have access to the file in the context of the enforcement proceedings."

The freedom of self-expression, for example by creating a self-portrait, designing an architecture, composing a work, and publicating a vision, is also a fundamental right.
The EC cannot pick one fundamental right, to which it wants to comply, but has to comply with all fundamental rights.

"(69) The Commission should be empowered to request information necessary for the purpose of this Regulation, throughout the Union. In particular, the Commission should have access to any relevant documents, data, database, algorithm and information necessary to open and conduct investigations and to monitor the compliance with the obligations laid down in this Regulation, irrespective of who possesses the documents, data or information in question, and regardless of their form or format, their storage medium, or the place where they are stored."

This reminds us of a raid.

"(70) The Commission should be able to directly request that undertakings or association of undertakings provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. When complying with a decision of the Commission, undertakings are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents."

This demand proves once again that an entity meeting the howsoever objective requirements and the quantitative thresholds for a gatekeeper is already viewed and handled like a (serious) criminal even without having infringed any law, regulation, and act. This is called prejudgement. It really makes one speechless that such a proposal was authored at all and was then also published.

"(71) The Commission should also be empowered to undertake onsite inspections and to interview any persons who may be in possession of useful information and to record the statements made."

Are we still talking about a market regulation, or a murder investigation, witch hunt, or inquisition?

"This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 16, 47 and 50 thereof. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied with respect to those rights and principles[.]"

Conclusion:
That PfDMA does

• equal subjection of all members of a society to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes in the equal manner,
• presumption of innocence and
• avoidance of prejudgement.

00:3³ and 22:02 UTC+1
SOPR #313

*** Work in progress - mode just started ***
Topics

Legal matter []
As announced timely, the negotiation phase concerning an out-of-court agreement ended on the 31st of December 2021, and therefore we do not feel to be bound to our commitments made before anymore.
Eventually, it was a giant mistake of other entities to

• the out-of-court agreement of C.S. and our corporation, and
• 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) now under complete revision,

and

• respect the rights of C.S. and our corporation, and
• collaborate with us unreservedly and constructively.

In the meantime, our room for legal manoeuvre and leverage have increased tremendously by showing significant evidences for serious crimes conducted in the past in relation to our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S.. In fact, our marvelous legal position was always and has never changed, but our possibilities to defend our rights have improved to incredible extents, so that we cannot only strike up and control the game in totally different ways, but also shape the whole playing field at our pleasure and discretion, and in favour of our benefits. This is reflected with

The term individual means, that a legal matter is effective at least nation-wide or jurisdiction-wide.

First of all, the AoA and the ToS get rid of the benefit pro bono publico==for the public good and instead focus only on our artistical and commercial interests again.

Furthermore, due to the reason that refusers violate the protection ordinances of our SOPR concerning the original and unqiue works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our SOPR with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., and thus constitute a risk of repetition for the

According to the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, exclusion from performance and reproduction can be imposed preventively in the event of imminent damages of the goals and even threats of the integrity of C.S. and our corporation, including our SORP.
Having said this, individuals, companies, and communities have now been warned the last time.

Furthermore, new legal measures and regulations have been imposed for countries and state, value, and trade communities.

Legal matter [Contractual penalty]
We are considering as contractual penalty a

• triple damage compensation or
• total annual turnover,

and

Legal matter [Proposal for a Digital Market Act]
In the Ontonics Further steps of the 3rd of January 2021 (today) we quoted and commented relevant sections and articles of the Proposal for a Digital Market Act (PfDMA) of the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU).
In the following we give our conclusion and discuss potential solutions to cure potential deficits.

The PfDMA has its merrits

Even the proposed procedures and tools are reasonable.
But the PfDMA perverts the causality of the process chain and ignores other principles, that have to be obeyed for guaranteeing rule of law and fair jurisprudence.

We expect that these 3 proposals related to the digital sector become law in the European Union.

much to much socialism, which is

somehow malicious, capricious, arbitrary, despotic

breaking juridical system, does not follow rule of law, does not guarantee foundational rights despite claiming so in the PfDMA ...

not rule-based in many cases and details, but open for political interference, which is not rule of law.
If the clique thinks that a core platform service is unwanted for whatever reasons, then it can say this and that rule of one of the EU's digital acts applies to get said service and also the whole core platform under control or even get rid of it.

If an entity has specific legal characteristics, then it will act in illegal ways. This is called prejudgment, which is not permissible under the rule of law and the foundational rights. This is quite astonishing in a society or a community of values based, among other things, on the rule of law, which prohibits exactly this as one of its fundamental principles.
For example, companies are classified on the basis of indicators, designated as potentially criminal entities according to this classification, and eventually obliged to comply with the obligations of the act being effective.

These legal acts in the digital sector constitute a cold expropriation of

without having to introduce a specific expropriation law and pay compensation of fair market value

The PfDMA constitutes a massive interference in the basic principles of free market and competition with huge negative effects on the overall goal of the Digital Services Act package in particular and the digital strategy of the EU in general.

Obviously, the PfDMA is a very special act by picking out only some few companies, specifically U.S.American companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector, but not a general act, which raises serious questions and triggers huge complications and negative, destructive effects in

The PfDMA complements ex post rules of the EU competition laws with ex ante rules in a way, that is also considered as prejudgment.

We cannot agree to such legal acts, because they

This is even more ridiculous due to the fact that we provide legal certainty in the first step and in this way the foundation for such legal acts.
Even more ridiculous is the fact, that we developed a solution for a common problem, but the other side took our solution and perverted it against us in favour of only the own benefits once again.

The lawmakers of the EC and governments of the member states of the European Union have once again taken the solutions discussed and presented in the issues of our SOPR as a blueprint, but this time drafted legal regulations as countermeasures.
It seems to be that the EC has finally overreached its competences, which would not be surprising.

For example, in the section Legal matter [Satellite constellations] of the issue #309 of the 11th of December 2020 we also said that the level playing field is not inside our Ontologic System, but on the level of our Ontologic System (OS). Contestability and competition has to be done on the level of our OS. A competitor has to create an own system, but not a variante of our OS or take our OS as a blueprint.
Note that all competitors and the rest of the public have chosen our OS on the basis of their freedom of choice and were not enforced by us in any way.

Our opinion is that the unwillingness of federal authorities and governments to apply and execute, and also to expand and revise the competition or antitrust law has a reason, which is not to regulate the digital sector and its large companies, but to control C.S. and our corporation, because these acts for the digital and virtual sector include goals and regulations, which do not make sense otherwise.

Howsoever, we have the opinion that we do not need to follow those regulations and obligations given with those legal acts concerning the digital sector at all due to the foundational right, the moral right, and the copyright of C.S., and by exclusively acting with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. we will not engage in such a dance on eggshells for no conclusive reasons.
The OS, including the Evoos, the Caliber/Calibre, the Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), the Ontoscope (Os), the OAOS, the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and so on, is an original and unique masterpiece.
This means that every modification of our OS requires the consent of C.S. and as long as our corporation acting on the behalf of C.S. does not allow the mimicking of C.S., and the performance and reproduction of the OS, there is no other entity that mimicks C.S., and performs and reproduce the OS in legal ways.
We do not have to give any consent and make any compromise concerning the modification and also performance and reproduction of the OS.

Nevertheless, we transfered the principle of (Fair,) Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory ((F)RAND) terms in the patent law to the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions of our SOPR.
By resolving this legal gridlock through voluntary (F)RAND or even FRANDAC terms and conditions the common problem can be solved without the requirement of an expropriation, if possible at all in the very special case of our OS.
But an expropriation in this special situation is not possible under the rule of law and there exists no foundational right, which is higher than another foundational right.

More concession will not be done and every act regulating more of a foundational right in a limiting way is void, indeed. And this is the right way to go under the rule of law, which demands that governing bodies and every other entity with special protection by foundational laws (e.g. uncontrolled press, self-determination of the church, and so on) do have their limits as well. Here is the red line and if this red line is still not respected and hence the rights of C.S. and our corporation are still not respected, then we do have to exercise the matter at the courts. And we only need to win 1% of our rights at the courts.

If we understand the PfDMA correctly, then it prohibits C.S. to self-express by performing the Ontologic System and to exclusively exploit the Ontologic System by performing and reproducing it, as guaranteed by the foundational right, the moral right, and the copyright. At least we have a huge legal contradiction.

Honestly, we have not found the loopholes, in case there are any at all, due to our special legal situation of a cybernetic self-portrait presented and performed by C.S. with the Ontologic System created by C.S..
Indeed, the PfDMA includes the following: "In exceptional circumstances justified on the limited grounds of public morality, public health or public security, the Commission should be able to decide that the obligation concerned does not apply to a specific core platform service. Affecting these public interests can indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation would in a certain exceptional case be too high and thus disproportionate." But we would still be regulated and obliged in ways that we do not have to accept.
But eventually, this would mean that a fundamental right is taken away through the introduction of a new law at first and then the granting of a new right on the grounds of a constructed argument and a special exception clause of said new law, which says that one is not affected by said new law. Or said in other words, we are supposed to trade a fundamental right given by the basic law or constitution for a special or exceptional right of some third-rate competition law just to continue doing what we are allowed to do by the basic law or constitution anyway.

Two extremes exist as alternatives, that are

• employees of our ,
• contractors, suppliers, and providers of our Societies,
• customers, and
• end users,

or

But we reject these alternatives due to our rights.

Howsoever, if our SOPR will not be allowed to act as worked out since around September 2017, then we will not open and license our Ontologic System (OS), our Ontoscope (Os), and our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) for any performance and reproduction by other entities, which implies for example

• being located and
• acting

in the European Union.

We made crystal clear over the last two years that we will not make further concessions.

By the way:

License Model (LM)
Multiple times discussed and announced: We would like to recall that we have made the next revision of the License Model (LM) on the 30th of December 2020, which is valid as of the 1st of January 2021.

We also changed some details (see also above). For example, we increased the royalties to more common heights and grant higher discounts, which was required due to reasons related to the market regulators.

Stock markets. At first, we have set the share to 5%, when selling shares of startups. But we incresed this in accordance with the LM and the scope of success on the basis of our ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs).
For example, if somebody sells shares of for example the big five ICO companies, then 10% or more percent of the profit generated with the sell of shares are due.

{tables missing}

European Union [Measures]
The position of entities in the European Union (EU) has become obvious. They have chosen to continue a cold war against

that does not agree with the believes and views, and do not submit to the rules of the related governments and their cliques.

For entities with headquarter in the European Union:

P.R.China [Measures]
As much we appreciate the investment agreement between our friends of the P.R.China and the EU, it does not change our position until we get all of our rights, properties, and momenta, as well as follow-up opportunities back.

For entities with headquarter in the P.R.China:

U.S.America [Measures]
For entities with headquarter in the U.S.America:

If an U.S.American administration does not play be the rule of law like the administrations of the EU and the P.R.China, then we will act accordingly like in the case of the EU and the P.R.China.

Rest of the World [Measures]
For entities with headquarter in the rest of the world respectively not in the European Union, P.R.China, and U.S.America:

If an administration does not play be the rule of law like the administrations of certain countries, then we will act accordingly like in the case of certain countries.

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) [Digital and virtual currencies]
To continue with damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of C.S. and our corporation the worldwide media and investors are not willing to inform the public that the cryptocurrency Bitcoin and other digital and virtual currencies are illegal, because they are

Furthermore, the governments are refusing to interfere and protect the rights of C.S. and our corporation, which is even more odd, because they want digital currencies, but do not want such digital and virtual currencies respectively illegal Ponzi schemes, which our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) supports to 100%.
If they do not act decisively immediately, then our OntoCoin and OntoTaler, as well as Quantum Coin (Qoin) become the only worldwide official digital and virtual currencies based on our OS in the legal scope of ... the OntoLand.

OFinS [Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC)]
For sure, we are also observing the latest trend or should we say nonsense in the finance industry sector called Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) since quite some time.

We will take every measure required to protect our rights and properties from unwanted communitization, speculation, gambling, and other fraudulent activities at the stock markets and in other situations.
To be honest, there is a considerable motivation and huge potential that our SOPR will ban SPACs from our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS).

Ontonics OCFI Fund I #1

2 Sovereignties - 2 Systems - 2 Strategies
1 Solution

Our new investment program called Ontologic Chinese Friendship Investment Fund (OCFIF) allows the members and licensees of our Societies to enjoy the incredible possibilities and benefits enabled by the investment treaty between the European Union (EU) and the P.R.China in a safe and secure way, even if they are not allowed to make specific investments at all.
Very important to note for potential investors are the facts that the OCFIF I

So let's go.

04.January.2021

06:06 UTC+1
Ontonics Further Steps

In the last days, we continued with the examination of the Proposal for a Digital Market Act (PfDMA) of the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU).
In the following, we quote and comment relevant sections and articles of the PfDMA. Wherever appropriated, we gave the text more structure for better readability and understanding.

"Article 1 [-] Subject matter and scope
1. [...]
2. [...]
3. This Regulation shall not apply to markets:
  (a) related to electronic communications networks as defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council36;
  (b) related to electronic communications services as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 other than those related to interpersonal communication services as defined in point (4)(b) of Article 2 of that Directive.
4. [...]
5. [...]
6. [...]
7. [...]"

Not O.K.. The regulation has to apply to all markets related to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector, specifically the ones related to electronic communications networks and electronic communications services.

"Article 2 [-] Definitions"
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:
(1) 'Gatekeeper' means a provider of core platform services designated pursuant to Article 3;
(2) 'Core platform service' means any of the following:
  (a) online intermediation services;
  (b) online search engines;
  (c) online social networking services;
  (d) video-sharing platform services;
  (e) number-independent interpersonal communication services;
  (f) operating systems;
  (g) cloud computing services
  (h) advertising services, including any advertising networks, advertising exchanges and any other advertising intermediation services, provided by a provider of any of the core platform services listed in points (a) to (g);
(3) 'Information society service' means any service within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535;
(4) 'Digital sector' means the sector of products and services provided by means of or through information society services;
(5) 'Online intermediation services' means services as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150;
(6) 'Online search engine' means a digital service as defined in point 5 of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150;
(7) 'Online social networking service' means a platform that enables end users to connect, share, discover and communicate with each other across multiple devices and, in particular, via chats, posts, videos and recommendations;
(8) 'Video-sharing platform service' means a service as defined in point (aa) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2010/1339;
(9) 'Number-independent interpersonal communications service' means a service as defined in point 7 of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972;
(10) 'Operating system' means a system software which controls the basic functions of the hardware or software and enables software applications to run on it;
(11) 'Cloud computing services' means a digital service as defined in point 19 of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council40;
(12) 'Software application stores' means a type of online intermediation services, which is focused on software applications as the intermediated product or service;
(13) 'Software application' means any digital product or service that runs on an operating system;
(14) 'Ancillary service' means services provided in the context of or together with core platform services, including payment services as defined in point 3 of Article 4 and technical services which support the provision of payment services as defined in Article 3(j) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, fulfilment, identification or advertising services;
(15) 'Identification service' means a type of ancillary services that enables any type of verification of the identity of end users or business users, regardless of the technology used;
(16) 'End user' means any natural or legal person using core platform services other than as a business user;
(17) 'Business user' means any natural or legal person acting in a commercial or professional capacity using core platform services for the purpose of or in the course of providing goods or services to end users;
(18) 'Ranking' means the relative prominence given to goods or services offered through online intermediation services or online social networking services, or the relevance given to search results by online search engines, as presented, organised or communicated by the providers of online intermediation services or of online social networking services or by providers of online search engines, respectively, whatever the technological means used for such presentation, organisation or communication;
(19) 'Data' means any digital representation of acts, facts or information and any compilation of such acts, facts or information, including in the form of sound, visual or audiovisual recording;
(20) 'Personal data' means any information as defined in point 1 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
(21) 'Non-personal data' means data other than personal data as defined in point 1 of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679;
(22) 'Undertaking' means all linked enterprises or connected undertakings that form a group through the direct or indirect control of an enterprise or undertaking by another and that are engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed;
(23) 'Control' means the possibility of exercising decisive influence on an undertaking, as understood in Regulation (EU) No 139/2004."

Not quite O.K.. The designation cloud computing has to be substituted with the designation distributed computing, or the designation cloud computing services has to be substituted with the designation Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services or alternatively with the designation distributed system. The same holds for the point 19 of Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as wel as all other directives.
Only C.S. is allowed to designate this kind of technology and define its scope due to the copyright related to the original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
Furthermore, an identification service is not a type of ancillary service, but a service, which can be an ancillary service in specific circumstances.
In addition, end users must not use other services than business users. Both groups can use the same services. End users are the last link in the chain of value-adding activities that does not add any value to a good or service, as the letters "end" in the designation implies.
Last but not least, data is not any digital representation of acts, facts or information and any compilation of such acts, facts or information. In fact, the definition is different. "Data are a set of values of qualitative or quantitative variables about one or more persons or objects, while a datum (singular of data) is a single value of a single variable." Simply said, act is action and information is data in action, while fact is obsolete in this case.

"Article 3 [-] Designation of gatekeepers
1. A provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:
  (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
  (b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
  (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
2. A provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:
  (a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
  (b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;
  for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;
  (c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.
3. Where a provider of core platform services meets all the thresholds in paragraph 2, it shall notify the Commission thereof within three months after those thresholds are satisfied and provide it with the relevant information identified in paragraph 2.. That notification shall include the relevant information identified in paragraph 2 for each of the core platform services of the provider that meets the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). The notification shall be updated whenever other core platform services individually meet the thresholds in paragraph 2 point (b). [...]
4. [...]
5. [...]
6. [...]
7. For each gatekeeper identified pursuant to paragraph 4 or paragraph 6, the Commission shall identify the relevant undertaking to which it belongs and list the relevant core platform services that are provided within that same undertaking and which individually serve as an important gateway for business users to reach end users as referred to in paragraph 1(b).
8. [...]"

Not O.K.. The quantitative thresholds in paragraph 2 are arbritrary and also put successful businesses under suspicion of incontestability and unfair business practices, which is not allowed due to foundational legal principles and foundational rights of the responsible persons and shareholders. It is like claiming a person, who has a high annual income and owns an expensive sportscar will violate the road traffic regulations by speeding. Tock. Tock. Tock. Hello! Hello! Anybody home?
Paragraph 3 is just only ridiculous by demanding successful businesses to even provide the data themselves and eventually put themselves under suspicion of incontestability and unfair business practices.
Somehow, we have the impression that certain entities are desparate and therefore trying to wind certain other entities up. One cannot seriously administer an economy like that.

"Article 4 [-] Review of the status of gatekeepers
[...]"

O.K.

"Article 5 [-] Obligations for gatekeepers
In respect of each of its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3(7), a gatekeeper shall:
  (a) refrain from combining personal data sourced from these core platform services with personal data from any other services offered by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services, and from signing in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data, unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and provided consent in the sense of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. ;
  (b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
  (c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;
  (d) refrain from preventing or restricting business users from raising issues with any relevant public authority relating to any practice of gatekeepers;
  (e) refrain from requiring business users to use, offer or interoperate with an identification service of the gatekeeper in the context of services offered by the business users using the core platform services of that gatekeeper;
  (f) refrain from requiring business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 or which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b) as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article;
  (g) provide advertisers and publishers to which it supplies advertising services, upon their request, with information concerning the price paid by the advertiser and publisher, as well as the amount or remuneration paid to the publisher, for the publishing of a given ad and for each of the relevant advertising services provided by the gatekeeper."

Not O.K.. For example, the points (e) and (f) cannot be fulfilled with a modified Ontologic System, because an IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) with its related platforms, applications, and services is one of the essential elements of an OS, which is required for other essential OS technologies and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
{To be continued}

"Article 6 [-] Obligations for gatekeepers susceptible of being further specified
1. In respect of each of its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3(7), a gatekeeper shall:
  (a) refrain from using, in competition with business users, any data not publicly available, which is generated through activities by those business users, including by the end users of these business users, of its core platform services or provided by those business users of its core platform services or by the end users of these business users;
  (b) allow end users to un-install any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un-installation in relation to software applications that are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third-parties;
  (c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;
  (d) refrain from treating more favourably in ranking services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself or by any third party belonging to the same undertaking compared to similar services or products of third party and apply fair and nondiscriminatory conditions to such ranking;
  (e) refrain from technically restricting the ability of end users to switch between and subscribe to different software applications and services to be accessed using the operating system of the gatekeeper, including as regards the choice of Internet access provider for end users;
  (f) allow business users and providers of ancillary services access to and interoperability with the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision by the gatekeeper of any ancillary services;
  (g) provide advertisers and publishers, upon their request and free of charge, with access to the performance measuring tools of the gatekeeper and the information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of the ad inventory;
  (h) provide effective portability of data generated through the activity of a business user or end user and shall, in particular, provide tools for end users to facilitate the exercise of data portability, in line with Regulation EU 2016/679, including by the provision of continuous and real-time access ;
  (i) provide business users, or third parties authorised by a business user, free of charge, with effective, high-quality, continuous and real-time access and use of aggregated or non-aggregated data, that is provided for or generated in the context of the use of the relevant core platform services by those business user and the end users engaging with the products or services provided by those business users; for personal data, provide access and use only where directly connected with the use effectuated by the end user in respect of the products or services offered by the relevant business user through the relevant core platform service, and when the end user opts in to such sharing with a consent in the sense of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679;;
  (j) provide to any third party providers of online search engines, upon their request, with access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to ranking, query, click and view data in relation to free and paid search generated by end users on online search engines of the gatekeeper, subject to anonymisation for the query, click and view data that constitutes personal data;
  (k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
2. For the purposes of point (a) of paragraph 1 data that is not publicly available shall include any aggregated and non-aggregated data generated by business users that can be inferred from, or collected through, the commercial activities of business users or their customers on the core platform service of the gatekeeper."

Point (i) is not O.K., because no free of charge for additional performance of the service provider, but Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms for connection and transmission.
Point (j) is not O.K., because business property and business secret. Competitors have to do it on their own.
Point (k) seems not to be quite right, because the reference to the Article 3 Designation of gatekeepers does not include matter related to applications stores. Only the Article 2(12) and the Article 6(1) point (c) deal with application stores.
{To be continued}

"Article 7 [-] Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers
[...]"

O.K.

"Article 8 [-] Suspension
1. The Commission may, on a reasoned request by the gatekeeper, exceptionally suspend, in whole or in part, a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 for a core platform service by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), where the gatekeeper demonstrates that compliance with that specific obligation would endanger, due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the gatekeeper, the economic viability of the operation of the gatekeeper in the Union, and only to the extent necessary to address such threat to its viability. The Commission shall aim to adopt the suspension decision without delay and at the latest 3 months following receipt of a complete reasoned request.
2. [...]
3. [...]"

O.K., though in our case, this would comprise the whole OS or at least the whole infrastructure with the subsystems and platforms of our SOPR. But as we already made clear, we have the opinion that the PfDMA is without prejudice or limitiation to the copyright law.

"Article 9 [-] Exemption for overriding reasons of public interest
1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, by decision adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 32(4), exempt it, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Articles 5 and 6 in relation to an individual core platform service identified pursuant to Article 3(7), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision at the latest 3 months after receiving a complete reasoned request.
2. An exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 may only be granted on grounds of:
  (a) public morality;
  (b) public health;
  (c) public security.
3. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, provisionally suspend the application of the relevant obligation to one or more individual core platform services already prior to the decision pursuant to paragraph 1.
In assessing the request, the Commission shall take into account, in particular, the impact of the compliance with the specific obligation on the grounds in paragraph 2 as well as the effects on the gatekeeper concerned and on third parties. The suspension may be made subject to conditions and obligations to be defined by the Commission in order to ensure a fair balance between the goals pursued by the grounds in paragraph 2 and the objectives of this Regulation. Such a request may be made and granted at any time pending the assessment of the Commission pursuant to paragraph 1."

O.K., but see the comment to Article 8 and also the comment given in the section Legal matter [Proposal for a Digital Market Act] of the issue SOPR #313 of the 3rd of January 2021.
If not already effective in the European Union due to the connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market, then an article or a paragraph is required, that regulates a core platform service, which is protected by the copyright, without prejudice respectively that set the regulation is without influence on the copyright law in addition to the ECHR.

"Article 10 [-] Updating obligations for gatekeepers
[...]
1. 2. [...]"

O.K.
Paragraph 2 should be an article at the beginning or a paragraph of Article 1, which is then referenced by Article 10(2).

"Article 11 [-] Anti-circumvention
1. A gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 are fully and effectively complied with. While the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 apply in respect of core platform services designated pursuant to Article 3, their implementation shall not be undermined by any behaviour of the undertaking to which the gatekeeper belongs, regardless of whether this behaviour is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature.
2. Where consent for collecting and processing of personal data is required to ensure compliance with this Regulation, a gatekeeper shall take the necessary steps to either enable business users to directly obtain the required consent to their processing, where required under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, or to comply with Union data protection and privacy rules and principles in other ways including by providing business users with duly anonymised data where appropriate.EN 44 EN The gatekeeper shall not make the obtaining of this consent by the business user more burdensome than for its own services
3. A gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5 and 6, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult."

Not O.K., because in our case paragraph 1 would limit the right to exploit an original and unique, and therefore copyrighted work of art without restrictions.
Paragraph 2 belongs into the Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) and Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Paragraph 3 is also not O.K., because a service provider is allowed to make such changes and decisions concerning conditions and quality related to all of their platform services even if such an action make the exercise of using a platform service more difficult for users. But we do not think that such an action is in the interest of a service provider, beacause it might harm their own business success due to the reason that users are free to select another service, which makes said exercise easier.
Paragraph 1 seems not to be quite right, because the reference to the Article 3 Designation of gatekeepers does not include matter designating core platform services. Only the Article 2(2) deals with the designation of core platform services.

"Article 12 [-] Obligation to inform about concentrations
1. A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission of any intended concentration within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving another provider of core platform services or of any other services provided in the digital sector irrespective of whether it is notifiable to a Union competition authority under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 or to a competent national competition authority under national merger rules.
A gatekeeper shall inform the Commission of such a concentration prior to its implementation and following the conclusion of the agreement, the announcement of the public bid, or the acquisition of a controlling interest.
2. [...]
3. [...]"

O.K. in the scope of the PfDMA, but not O.K. in general, because any regulation should apply to all entities and it is the duty of the EC and the member states of the EU to monitor the market.

"Article 13 [-] Obligation of an audit
Within six months after its designation pursuant to Article 3, a gatekeeper shall submit to the Commission an independently audited description of any techniques for profiling of consumers that the gatekeeper applies to or across its core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3. This description shall be updated at least annually."

Not O.K. in general, because any regulation should apply to all entities and it is the duty of the EC and the member states of the EU to monitor the market.
In addition, Article 13 touches business secrets, is disproportional, and also is unsuitable and inappropriate for the dynamics and pace of the digital sector.

Conclusion:
We aborted the examination and commentation, because these acts for the digital and virtual sector are more or less obsolete or illegal attempts to regulate the performance and reproduction of our Ontologic System (OS), and the activities of the members and licensees of our Societies.

05.January.2021

Style of Speed Further steps

We have worked on two models of automobiles.

In the first case, we designed a very special fun model, which unites classic style of speed with high-technology and is a permanent smile maker.
Despite being conceived in the first place for C.S. as a vehicle for special times and places, Style of Speed is very glad to share the fun and more emotions with other driving enthusiasts, style fashionista, and speed fanatics.
In this regard, we do not know how high the demand for this model is, but it could be very well above 1,000 units or even significantly more according to our estimation based on known sales numbers for comparable sportscars, its manufacturing costs, and other supporting market conditions.

In the other case, we developed and designed the next generation of our model 9EE, which is the third generation now (3G), if we counted correctly.
Indeed, we have forseen this evolution, but the 9EE reached a level of performance, which slightly exceeded our estimations and expectation, as some numbers of its specification show:

The performance is always available at the pedal and the tires, and no negative effects and low qualities, for sure.

If our fans and readers find the variant Taycan of the manufacturer Porsche based on our model Pan and other creations and works already astonishing, then we can only tell them: Hold on your breath and do not drive with pacemaker.

This is the new benchmark and standard for supercars in general and electric hypercars in particular.
Our original and unique

architectures and related systems and platforms, components, and services can also be utilized for other types of vehicles like for example our eSUVs™, eSUTs™, and ePickups™.

By the way:

07.January.2021

01:27 UTC+1
SOPR #314

*** Work in progress - better structure and wording ***
Topics
This issue continues the discussion about the proposed acts for the digital and virtual sector of the U.S.American market regulators and the European Commission:

Legal matter [Proposal for a Digital Market Act]
We examined and commented the PfDMA until the Chapter III Article 13, see the

and then aborted the examination and commentation, because these acts for the digital and virtual sector are more or less obsolete or illegal attempts to regulate the performance and reproduction of our Ontologic System (OS), and the activities of the members and licensees of our Societies.

In fact, the whole situation is even totally different then the PfDMA suggests.
We have researched, created, designed, and developed, and also presented and discussed an Ontologic System (OS), which is also

which all are integrated by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Furthermore, our OS comprises further developments of theb fields of Ops, DS, SB, IoT, and so on. In fact, all these core platform services are already based on our OS, which is also the reason why all the market participants, specifically the so-called gatekeepers of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector, have to license our OS. But they are not licensing an item of the fields of Ops, DS, SB, IoT, and so on, and providing related core platform services. They sticked with the designations and created new ones like for example cloud, edge, and fog computing, ***coin, and so on to camouflage their illegal actions, including stealing our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs), conspiring, and misleading the public.

Even if the industries would try to hold on to that already busted trick or to that worldwide conspiracy, including joint stealing of our AWs and IPs, and also ignorance and denial of our existence, it does not help them anymore, because we already presented significant undeniable and court-proof evidences in all relevant circumstances and fields, that prove causal links with our OS.

As we pointed out in this context, for example in relation to Article 3, the designation cloud computing is wrong. But at this point, we can also see with this Article 3 that

But once again, that trick is completely busted.
But virtually all those technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications, devices, robots, and vehicles), and services (e.g. as a Service capability models and operational models) that the PfDMA intends to cover and regulate

which the EC is not allowed to regulate, because the OS is protected by the copyright in general and even protected by foundational rights in a way in particular, that an expropriation of the related copyright is illegal.

Even more worse we are not talking about the digital sector alone anymore, but about our New Reality, also wrongly called extended reality, which is the fusion of the real and physical world with the virtual and metaphysical world, also called the digital world.

Eventually, the PfDMA only covers and regulates those few technologies, goods, and services of the 1990s and 2000s, which are not based on our Evoos and OS.
There is no Internet and no World Wide Web, but our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) (Ontologic System Components (OSC)).
There is also no grid computing and no cloud computing and no edge computing and no fog computing (anymore). The latter are marketing terms mostly used as other designations for the related parts of our Evoos and our OS, and the many utilizations of them.
There is even no online search engine anymore, but knowledge bases with retrieval functions and User Interfaces (UIs), which are operated as distributed systems, multi-actor systems, and multi-agent systems, which again are based on our Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase or OB), Ontologic File System (OntoFS or OFS), OntoBot (OB), and other components and features of our OS, and integrated by our OSA.
The same holds for online social networking services, video-sharing platform services, and number-independent interpersonal communication services.
Even the designation core platform is based on our OS, as one can see with the Ontologic Core (OC) component, which comprises the integrated functionality of multiple operating systems, which again are managed, operated, and provided more or less as a Service (e.g. Windows as a Service), and the OSystem core, which is running in the 1st ring and related ID spaces of the management structure of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV).

In addition, they are

Furthermore,

of the European Union, because they are of general nature and must apply for all, even for the small pizza booth and used car dealer around the corner. We will go into the details and sort this out later and before the abortion.

In particular, the overall count of companies that are so-called gatekeepers is too low and therefore also does not justify the introduction of a new act, because we are talking about only a dozen of stock-listed companies.
In general, the tools of the EU and national competition rules or antitrust laws are sufficient to handle them, as also shown with this PfDMA, so that the introduction of a new act is not justified in contrast to extensions and revisions of the existing rules or laws.
Besides this, a more ambitious, sophisticated, and stringent regulation of the stock markets is required to stop hidden Ponzi schemes and other distortions and disturbances of the (internal) market.

The question is now how to resolve the societal problem by protecting the rights of the

because it is undeniable that these acts and their goals have their merits and benefits pro bono publico==for the public good.

We announced, that we will sort out what belongs in which already existing laws, specifically the

of the European Union, so that at least the PfDMA is not required at all or at least does merely constitute related extensions of already existing laws, but no new law or complement of existing laws.

This step also lays the foundation for the harmonization with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR (see below).

The task is to

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, and also
• regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR

in relation to worldwide digital and virtual activities, specifically in the fields of commerce and service.

The drawing of the red line respectively the drafting of the legal limitations, regulations, and obligations, which a contestable and fair market of a free society does need for proper functioning, has to be done very carefully, because we do not want to

Therefore, we took as guidelines the

and harmonized them.
Besides the harmonization with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, the latter also has the advantage that both unions of states get a common foundation for virtually frictionless real and virtual respectively cyber-physical activities, specifically in the fields of commerce and service.

Legal matter [3 undertaking options]
Our SOPR complies to national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements like the ones listed above of the EU and similar ones of other countries and unions of state.

Our OS integrates all in one. Therefore, our

Our societal compromise concerning the

for the

pro bono publico==for the public good is based on the modification of our OS, which

All taken together implies that three legal options exist for commercial undertakings respectively business members and licensees of our SOPR, which are definied on the basis of the private and public responsibilities for the undertakings:
1. main contractor, supplier, and provider of our SOPR regulated by the copyright law
2. joint venture partner with our SOPR regulated by the

• 2.1.1 the majority and hence responsible for the partnership, or
• 2.1.2 50% and hence both joint venture partners are equally responsible for the partnership and the joint venture is a technology, good, and service provider for private entities,

• 2.2.1 the majority and hence responsible for the partnership,
• 2.2.2 50% and hence both joint venture partners are equally responsible for the partnership and the joint venture is a technology, good, and service provider for private-public and public entities

3. independent technology, good, and service provider regulated by the competition rules or antitrust law, and the acts in the digital and virtual sector.

These legal options do not depend on a designation as a gatekeeper in the digital and virtual sector, but applies for every real and virtual commercial entity, that performs and reproduce our Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

Furthermore, raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, and algorithms are all considered digital and virtual properties, assets, or interests in general, which do belong to the entity, that

This basic regulation of ownership and hence protection of a digital and virtual property, asset, or interest has no legal limits in relation to a

which is

The basic regulation of ownership and protection of digital and virtual property, asset, or interest requires that a consent for using a digital and virtual property, asset, or interest of a lawful holder must always be asked for by a holder, manager, or operator of a technology, good, and service {in general or only scope of OS?} based on our OSC, OsC, and OAOS respectively performer and reproducer of our OSC, OsC, and OAOS, and therefore said consent cannot be enforced by them from the lawful holder of said digital and virtual property, asset, or interest.

In addition, the competition between separate legal entities has to take place on a level playing field, which means that a business process and business secret of a first holder, manager, or operator of a technology, good, and service must always be performed and reproduced in separation to a business process and business secret of a second holder, manager, or operator of a same, similar, or comparable technology, good, and service, but not inside of business processes and not on the basis of business secrets of competitors, such as for example so-called gatekeepers.
We also said the same in relation to our OS several times.
Eventually, competition inside business processes and on the basis of business secrets would only result in a situation, that competitors will provide even less freedom of choice, do even less innovation, and compete even less than they already do in favour of mimicking and assimilating even more business processes and business secrets of leading companies, which in turn would have less resources, because of higher cost and less yield or profit, and also less legal protection, and hence less interest in being innovative.

This basic regulation of separation and hence protection of a business process and business secret has no legal limits in relation to a

which is

In summary, the

lead to the following additional basic regulations concerning the

business processes of main contractors, suppliers, and service providers (option 1) are viewed as business processes of our SOPR and therefore covered as such.

The consent of a member and licensee of our SOPR for using a digital and virtual property, asset, or interest of a lawful holder given by a member and licensee of our SOPR

• one side comprising a
  • main contractor, supplier, and provider of our SOPR according to commercial option 1, or
  • joint venture according to commercial option 2.1,

  and the

• other side comprising a
  • joint venture according to commercial option 2.2, or
  • independent provider according to commercial option 3.

In this regard, we would like to recall that the consent of a member and licensee of our SOPR for mediating a service based on a business process or a business secret or both being done by our SOPR

• concerns the members and licensees of our SOPR and our SOPR, and
• limits the modification of our OS as part of the societal compromise to open our OS, and allow and license the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS.

This does not affect mandatory subsystems and platforms, and also roles of our SOPR, such as our

Other limitations, regulations, and obligations submitted with the PfDMA and other proposals are treated in the same way.

Style of Speed Further steps

We would like to share some more informations about our newest very special fun model mentioned in the Further steps of the 5th of January 2021 and called SF90 Aperta, SF90 Monza, SF90 SP, SF Monza, SF SP, or so.
Shown below is a dirty doodle to give a very first impression about the SF SP of Style of Speed (SoS).

© Ferrari and Style of Speed

The design of the SF SP comprises several elements:

We also have designed

• 1 or 2 small real and virtual windshields,
• braces around the driver and the other side, and
• luggage racks.

But we are not sure if all of these new parts will be realized.

By the way:

We also thought it would be time once again to flex our muscles and show the pack where Kermit has his curls.
Therefore, we developed and designed the next generation of our models 458 E and F8 (the originals), which is the third generation now (3G), if we counted correctly, designated as F8 Trionfo==Triumph, and based on the model 488 with the

Indeed, we have forseen this evolution, but the F8 Trionfo reached a level of performance, which considerably exceeded our estimations and expectation, as some numbers of its specification show:

The performance is always available at the pedal and the tires, and no negative effects and low qualities, for sure.

If our fans and readers find the variant Taycan of the manufacturer Porsche based on our model Pan and other creations and works already astonishing, then we can only tell them: Make the basic training of a fighter jet pilot or an astronaut at first.

This is the new benchmark and standard for supercars in general and electric hypercars in particular.
Our original and unique

architectures and related systems and platforms, components, and services can also be utilized for other types of vehicles like for example our eSUVs™, eSUTs™, and ePickups™.

By the way:

09.January.2021

Style of Speed Further steps

We would like to share some more informations about our newest development and design, which is the next generation of the model 9EE RSR of Style of Speed (SoS), which again

Shown below is a dirty doodle to give a very first impression about the new generation of our 9EE RSR. But the design will be modified considerably for achieving the very high performance.

© Porsche and Style of Speed

Indeed, we have forseen this evolution, but the 9EE RSR reached a level of performance, which considerably exceeded our estimations and expectation, as some numbers of its specification show:

The performance is always available at the pedal and the tires, and no negative effects and low qualities, for sure.

If our fans and readers find the variant Taycan of the manufacturer Porsche based on our model Pan and other creations and works already astonishing, then we can only tell them: .

This is the new benchmark and standard for supercars in general and electric hypercars in particular.
Our original and unique

architectures and related systems and platforms, components, and services can also be utilized for other types of vehicles like for example our eSUVs™, eSUTs™, and ePickups™.

By the way:

10.January.2021

03:50 and 28:26 UTC+1
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #11.4.1

We worked on our state-of-the-art power grid of the 21st century, specifically on the

but also on the

• public entities,
• private entities,
• members and licensees of our Societies, and
• business units and societies of our corporation.

We quote a related report: "California is currently the global leader in the effort to balance the intermittency of renewable energy in electric grids with utility-scale batteries, but the rest of the world is rapidly following suit.
[...]
The mass deployment of storage could overcome one of the biggest obstacles to renewable energy - its cycling between oversupply when the sun shines or the wind blows, and shortage when the Sun sets or the wind drops. By smoothing imbalances between supply and demand [...] batteries can replace fossil fuel "peaker" plants that kick in for a few hours a day when energy demands soar. As such, widespread energy storage could be key to expanding the reach of renewables and speeding the transition to a carbon-free power grid.
"Energy storage is actually the true bridge to a clean-energy future," says [the] executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association.
How quickly that future arrives depends in large part on how rapidly costs continue to fall.
[...]
[...] renewables combined with battery storage are already an economically viable alternative to building new gas peaker plants. Pairing electricity generation with storage works especially well with solar renewable energy, which generally follows a predictable daily pattern. And [...] as more solar renewable energy enters the grid, the cost of operating gas plants actually goes up.
"That's mainly because [gas plants] are forced to cycle on and off much more now because of solar penetration," [an expert] says. "This adds wear-and-tear, and shortens their lifetime."
Batteries are even beginning to reach a size - around 200 megawatts - that enables renewables to replace small- to medium-sized natural gas generators, says [a battery storage power station constructor]. "Now we're able to truly build these hybrid resources - solar, storage, wind - and do the job that was traditionally done by fossil fuel power plants," [...].
[...]
While energy storage is thriving in high-value markets, such as California, battery prices still need to come down more to reach large-scale global deployment. Yet analysts are optimistic that battery prices will eventually drop low enough for widespread energy storage use.
"We see storage being a large player across effectively every future we look at" [...]."

Our Megawatt, Gigawatt, and Terawatt electric energy storage facilities of our Superbolt #4 Electric Power (EP) of our Blitz Fund I are able to store significantly more energy than anything, which has been constructured, is being constructed, and will be constructed, and therefore are comparable to a large water storage reservoir with hydroelectric power plant just around the corner and wherever else needed.
And we will also have a lot of electric energy to store and use.

Having such a huge amount of electric power at immediate disposal allows a lot of new possibilities. Some of the

as well as many of our new subfields and undertakings in the fields of Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded System (NES) are already based on these possibilities and exploiting them for tremendous advantages.
By the way: This is another reason for investors to secure their shares in our investment programs.

Needless to say, many societal, social, political, legal, technological, environmental, and economical aspects have to be considered.
Experts do know that our utility-scale battery storage technology of our Superbolt #4 EP is not just the next required Game Changer mentioned in the report quoted above, because it solves the

but the next step defining our civilization.

We expect that

provide land in suitable and reasonable areas and sizes for the construction of our Megawatt, Gigawatt, and Terawatt electric energy storage facilities, whereby we can construct our facilities underground or as skyscrapers as well, if location requirements make this necessary.
We suggest that this step has to be done at first before we make the next move.
Please note that we prefer freehold instead of lease and the royalties of our Societies can be largely offset in the course of a purchase.

14.January.2021

Ontonics Blitz Fund I #12.4.2

As might have become obivious, we are preparing the next steps of our Superbolt #4 Electric Power (EP) included in our Blitz Fund I.
In this regard, we are looking for very large and effective global networks, as they are given with for example large companies in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and automotive industrial sectors, for the distribution of the technologies, goods, and services of our Superbolt #4.
The latter suggests to collaborate with companies like for example Alphabet→Google→Waymo, Amazon, and Apple, because they are already active in both fields.

But we also

15.January.2021

Ontonics Blitz Fund I #13.4.3

In relation to our Superbolt #4 Electric Power (EP) we are weighing the options of constructing wind power plants or solar power plants against each other in specific areas of the U.S.America.
In addition, we are thinking about related facilities as well as many other aspects like for example the protection and creation of jobs, quite a lot of.

Please note that we

20.January.2021

09:44 and 10:24 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We have integrated our new quick test for the SARS-CoV-2 virus presented in the Further steps of the 25th of September 2020 with our general approach presented many years ago and also mentioned in the Further steps of the 1st of April 2020,

Furthermore, another undisclosed quick test developed by us on the 24th of July 2020 has been proven to

by an independent entity some few days ago.

We also worked on an undisclosed feature, which makes our solution more effective.

Needless to say, our single quick tests and integrated quick test suite work for mass testing as well, for example in shopping malls, amusement parks, railway stations, on airports, tourist attractions, cruise ships, resorts, hotels, casinos, cinemas restaurants, and so on.
Even better, we worked out a strategy and related procedures, that make a shutdown of the economy not necessary and even avoid a lockdown of the society.

25.January.2021

03:46, 14:05, and 20:12 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - some better wording about 2nd case required ***
In relation to our explanations in the field of IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) with

• digital passport,
• health certification, and
• payment system

and observations of the related activities of others we came to the conclusion that some details are not explained and we guess it is done to camouflage our Ontologic System and mislead the public about the true origin of our original and unique works of art once again and as usual.

First company
The technology helps businesses to verify the identity of a person by using a

The first company also explained that with this technology the first and last name, address, or all the test data is not required in case of a digital healthcare related card, certification, or pass. It is enough to prove that one has been for example tested or vaccinated. The user opens her or his Ontoscope with a face scan respectively selfie and can then pass on the validated and verified content of the card, certificate, or pass. Only the status is transmitted.

Second company
The technology helps businesses to verify the identity of a person by

The second company claims that the digital picture taken at a point of sale is destroyed immediately, and the data is not shared with anyone.
The company also argues that it is less intrusive than paying by a mobile phone Ontoscope, because a phone Ontoscope can track the user's location at all times via the Global Positioning System (GPS).

In both cases

Note that alternatively to the second step, a user could generate such a cybernetic self-image or self-representation, for example in form of a mathematical map of unique facial vectors, and give it to a service provider.

We have not looked at the technical details of these solutions.
But we can already give the following clarification:

• be accredited by our SOPR respectively register at the Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) of our SOPR,
• hook into our OFinS, and
• collaborated with our OntoBank

in relation to payment systems and all other kinds of financial technologies, goods, and services based on our our OS.

• gets the raw signals and data, or
• withholds the license to use such verification and payment systems based on our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), including what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC).

• stationary computer terminal, such as an interactive kiosk, or
• mobile device, such as an Ontoscope.

It should also be crystal clear where the terms Bank 4.0 and Banking 4.0 truly originate from. Hint: The terms denote to "[...] the evolution of technology and discover a revolution already at work [...] blockchain, A.I., augmented reality and other leading-edge tech are the real building blocks of the future of banking systems [...] a world where banking will be instant, smart and ubiquitous [...]" and "[f]acial payment is part of the growing digital identity structure [...]".
"It might sound like something from a science fiction movie [...]".

Obviously, the real building blocks of (the future of) IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) and banking systems are based on

• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS),

• verifiable or verified computing,
• capability-based security,
• etc.,

• smart contract transaction protocol,
• blockchain technique,
• 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,

or simply said these building blocks are our OSComponents.
We developed this (future) banking system around the year 2004 and call it Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) and Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) by the way.
And before we forget it to mention, the digital identity structure is the unique existence of an individual in our Ontoverse based on our Caliber/Calibre and also known as OntoLand.
Even more important, we have proven that these parts of our OS

and therefore are copyright protected, as every truly competent attorney in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) law will confirm.
It is that easy. Is not it?

These solutions are bluff packages in respect to an alleged increase of data protection or privacy, and data security:

29.January.2021

Style of Speed Further steps

We have worked on the Turbo models of our 9EE, which accordingly are called

Both models fill the gap between the models

and have a(n)

• sport suspension with lowering installed, and
• weight reduction with
  • rear and rear side windows made of thinner glass,
  • rear seats removed,
  • lightweight carpet, and
  • less insulating material,

• seat upholstery,
• door side panel, and
• headliner.

Indeed, we have forseen this evolution, but the 9EE Turbo reached a level of performance, which slightly exceeded our estimations and expectation, as some numbers of its specification show:

The model 9EE Turbo S adds to the models 9EE and 9EE Turbo what one can never have enough: More Power - More Speed - More Fun to be always faster than models of other electric vehicle manufacturers.

The performance is always available at the pedal and the tires, and no negative effects and low qualities, for sure.

If our fans and readers find the variant Taycan of the manufacturer Porsche based on our model Pan and other creations and works already astonishing, then we can only tell them: Consult your doctor first.

This is the new benchmark and standard for supercars in general and electric hypercars in particular.
Our original and unique

architectures and related systems and platforms, components, and services can also be utilized for other types of vehicles like for example our eSUVs™, eSUTs™, and ePickups™.

By the way:

Welcome in our New Reality©™ and OntoVerse©™, aka. OntoLand©™