Legal matter [Anti-conspiracy clause]
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) added an anti-conspiracy clause to the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of it, which in case of its infringement would lead to an immediate blacklisting.

Legal matter [Due date]
The refreshment and update of our knowledge about prior art in the fields of

provide new evidences, which show that there is a very high potential that

is not Teached, Suggested, and Motivated (TSM) in prior art other than our Evolutinary operating system (Evoos).

We would not be surprised if the result of our latest investigation will be confirmed by other entities as well.
But it is already not relevant anymore in relation to CL respectively NLP and NLU, because the related HardWare (HW) is based on our Ontoscope (Os) anyway, though having more legal ammunition does not hurt.

A partial Ontologic Agent (OA or OntoAgent) and Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) variant was released as an application for an Ontologic System (OS) variant for an Ontoscope (Os) variant in February 2010.

Because we found out some months ago and hence are able to proof since then that all essential elements of this OA and OB variant are already included in or even based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) described in The Proposal, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) moved or brought the due date for the payment of the damage compensations and the admission fee forward by 1 year and set it to the 1st of January 2010.

In relation to the triple damage compensations we already suggested the last 3 years or the 3 years 2017 to 2019 retroactively, which should result in virtually the same total sum.
But our SOPR is also considering to demand

since 2010, specifically if an entity is not happy with anything proposed by us.

Legal matter [Ontoscope Components (OsC)]
Our Hightech Office Ontonics has decided that the control of the highly precise, rigorous, and secure

of the modules in the fields of Network System (NetS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) of access places and access devices to the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) of our OS respectively in our Ontoverse (Ov), such as all variants of our Ontoscope (Os), including

go to plants and other facilities of a special society or business unit of our corporation.
See the message Ontonics Further steps of the 1st of August 2022 for more information.

Our SOPR is also considering the strict separation of Ontoscopes (Os) and other devices based on our Os and OAOS contracts, specifically handheld Os, also wrongly called smartphone and tablet computer, and Os with Wheels, also wrongly called self-driving car and robotaxi.

Legal matter [FOSHS]
Our SOPR decided to take the issue with the illegal Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) projects out of the proposed societal compromise and sent related cease and desist letters regarding the labelling and licensing practice of illegal FOSHS projects, which are copying our original and unique, personal, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use works of art also titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS) and created by C.S. in whole or in part.

At least the labelling of all

• Android Smartphones, Android Tablets, Android Smartwatches,
• Harmony Smartphones, Harmony Tablets, Harmony Smartwatches, and
• DuerOS Smartphones, DuerOS Tablets, DuerOS Smartwatches,

and

• smart contract transaction protocol,
• Byzantine resilience protocols,
• blockchain technique and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT),
• multimodal Machine Learning Models (MLMs), also called supermodels and Mixture of Experts,
• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Industry 4.0, including Ontologic holon or Onton, also wrongly called digital twin,

  and also integrations of the fields of

• Cybernetics (Cyb),
• Soft Computing (SC or Soft C),
• Cognitive Computing (CC or CogC),
• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or eXtended Reality (XR),
• Wearable Computing (WC or Wear C),
• Humanistic Computing (HC or Human C),
• and so on

will be enforced.

Some companies already got the due date 8th of November 2022.

The response and immediate action on the part of the entities contacted will determine whether they receive an invitation letter from our SOPR or a response from the prosecutor's office.

See also the Ontonics Further steps of the 5th of August 2022.

We also would like to recall once again that all illegal actions, such as the performance and reproduction, as well as publication and distribution of our properties in illegal ways under a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) licenses can be cured without any problems, for example by implementing them in a legal way. In fact, to use Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is considered fair use and therefore the FOSS APIs of for example the Linux Foundation and the Apache Foundation can be used legally to implement a Linux kernel and various Apache frameworks.
In addition, the performance and reproduction, as well as the publication and distribution of illegal implementations can always be stopped instantly.
Obviously, the reversal is no problem at all, but just a matter of legal fomulation and practical formality.

License Model (LM) [License classes]
Our SOPR is considering a further or another differentiation of our OAOS into the license groups

• OAOS for old accrued talents until December 1999 and November 2006 (e.g. 10%),
• OAOS for developing talents (e.g. 15%),
• OAOS for new added talents (e.g. 20%),

as already done by the License Model (LM) of our SOPR with the differentiation of our OAOS into the license groups

• BasicOAOS (applications and services) - either 1 up to 2 or 1 up to 5 OAOS,
• MidOAOS (large applications and services, or small platforms) - either 3 up to 5 or 6 up to 15 OAOS, and
• SuperOAOS (large platforms) - either 6 up to 15 or 16 up to 25 OAOS,

(see the issue SOPR #318 of the 17th of March 2021) and also proposed 15% without Space and Time Computing and Networking (STCN) to 25% with STCN in the note of the 1st of August 2022, whereby

• without STCN is related to old accrued talents and developing talents, and
• with STCN is related to large platforms.

Potentially, a share of 20% of the revenue might be viewed at the courts as an unreasonable street price. But this point of view is wrong in parts, because this concern is satisfied by the differentiation of the OAOS into said license groups (see above), which addresses the

with many of the latter group being just only greedy and wanting the whole spectrum of allowed and licensed performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, which again is at least 20% +10% (non-labelling option) under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions.

Our SOPR also suggests the differentiation of the non-labelling option in accordance with the 5 licensee classes:
licensee class - percentage of share of revenue
1 - 10%
2 - 20%
3 - 30%
4 - 40%
5 - 50%

The monopolization of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically by fraudulent entities and illegal monopolies, is opposed by us, because

If an entity wants more or even as much as possible, then it has to pay more for all accordingly.
Companies have to decide how much they want to perform and reproduce of our OS and pay related amounts of royalties, if they are eligible as licensee.

Main Contract Model (MCM) [Local adaption]
The Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR was not completely understood. As usual and anticipated, only the part that feeds their greed for even more was understood, but not the inherent

After our SOPR already had to adapt the provision and designation of Main Contractors (MCs) in the P.R.China and Russia due to local laws, it is also considering to act in the same way in Europe (European Union, U.K., and Ukraine) and other regions due to recent developments in relation to proposed and preliminarily designated MCs, that are unable to understand the high-grade elaboration and resulting brilliance of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR (see also the section License Model (LM) above).

But entities should not misinterpret or misunderstand this consideration once again. There exists no European cloud, as is the case with a U.S.American cloud, P.R.Chinese cloud, and so on.
There exist only our

or simply said our Ontologic System (OS) with our Ontoverse (Ov).

Infrastructure [M&O of OAOS fabric]
Our SOPR decided for mandatory brokerage or {and} mediation of OAOS in relation to the Management and Orchestration (M&O) of the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) fabric of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

As we have observed, discussed, and documented, certain entities do not want to respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and therefore reject our proposed out-of-court agreement with its requirements in return for the opening and licensing of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
One of these requirements is that market regulators act against illegal monopolies, abuse of market power, and unfair competition, which requires to break up companies.
We have also noted that new laws, such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA) of the European Union (EU), does not work, because large companies are always circumventing and undermining laws and goals of societies, which once again demands to break up companies.
But instead we have observed that governments even collaborate with illegal monopolies as part of lobbyism and cliquism or simply said corruption.

We [have also noted] are also working on a general aspect in relation to a foundational misconception or misinterpretation in relation to monopoly versus freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

Specifically, large companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the engineering industries, that still are

have provided substantial and undeniable evidences, that they

even if they have introduced some kind of innovation and are conducting some kind of competition. In fact, what they have done in case of the original and unique, personal, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. is neither providing the freedom of choice, or realizing the kind of innovation, nor doing the kind of competition in the sense of a benefit for the public respectively in a way, which is resulting in a true benefit for the public, but only growing and solidifying monopolies even more.
We have also proven that a too wide opening of our OS would have allowed already existing monopolies and fraud schema to grow even more and solidify even more.
The resulting damages for the worldwide society are incredible huge.

This means for us that opening and licensing of the original and unique AWs and further IPs by our SOPR with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. has to be done in steps with strict limitations at the beginning and increasing freedoms at later points in time, if reasonable.

As already mentioned in the past, the difficulty lies in the problem of finding the right balance between

As also already said, we will not readjust the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) all the time.
We have already limited the scope of the performance and reproduction of the original and unique AWs and further IPs.
We have already limited this scope even further as reaction to circumventions and underminings of

We have already introduced the common infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
We have already introduced the common SoftBionics (SB) backbone, core network, or fabric, and also subsystem and platform, and SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) capability and operational models (SBaaSx), including Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) capability and operational models (MLaaSx) (see the issues SOPR #316 of the 14th of February 2021 and #33o of the 15th of July 2022).
We have already introduced the common ontological models, including foundational cognitive models, including what is wrongly called foundation models {or already architectures?} (see the issue #33o of the 15th of July 2022 once again).

We have already introduced the various common backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and their management and orchestration services of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR, specifically the common Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) fabric for the brokerage or mediation of OAOS (see the issue #327 of the 7th of June 2021), and proposed to make it exclusive.
Now, our SOPR decided to make it mandatory to monitor and control the

All providers of service platforms or OAOS Providers (OAOSPs) must use the Management and Orchestration (M&O) of the common Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) fabric, even for the own OAOS.
To reduce latency and friction, and increase harmony and synergy, control and monitoring, and safety and security of others and our properties an OAOS Provider (OAOSP) can choose the on-premise option to provide our SOPR

• facilities (e.g. data centers, and exchange points or hubs),
• technologies (e.g. systems and platforms),
• goods (e.g. applications, devices, and vehicles), and
• services

on-premise for the self-cost and

on-premise for the ordinary billing, which ideally will be off-set with the billing of our royalties. In this way, OAOSPs, that choose this on-premise option, become some kind of a Main Contractor (MC) of our SOPR automatically.

A service broker or {and} mediator can easily manage and orchestrate the related tasks and processes, and their connections, combinations, compositions, integrations, unifications, and fusions, as well as their life cycles, specifically on the basis of the fields of

our new fields of

our new foundations of the fields of

and also the

which were created, [connected,] or integrated or both for exactly these activities as well.
Not only they can misuse our works of art against us illegally, but we can use our works of art against them legally, too.

This measure would solve several issues with illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the fields of

• certain operating system level and even kernel space functionalities, such as exception-less Asynchronous Input/Output (AIO) for shared memory,
• operating system-level virtualization or containerization,
• Software-Defined Networking (SDN),
• Data Center operating system (DCos),
• Robotic operating system (Ros),
• Vehicle operating system (Vos),
• etc.,

• Autonomic Computing (AC) and
• Autonomic Networking (AN),

• Resource-Oriented Computing (ROC) and
• Resource-Oriented Networking (RON),

• Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA),
• Service-Oriented Computing (SOC),
• Service-Oriented Networking (SON), and
• management and orchestration of services,

specifically in relation to

• Mixed Reality (MR),
• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or eXtended Reality (XR),
• Synthetic Reality (SR),
• etc.,

We will build up the infrastructures of our SOPR anyway (see also the section Legal matter [FOSSH] above).

Best of all, on the one hand it adds complexity, but on the other hand it produces synergies, which eventually balance [at least]. In addition, the benefit for the public can be retained completely or even be increased, and virtually no time penalty occurs.

Related parts of the AoA and the ToS with the LM and MCM of our SOPR will be revised accordingly and made ready for publication on the website of Ontonics.

15.September.2022

08:07 UTC+2
Proof-of-Stake also not silver bullet at all

A better known illegal crypto platform has changed its underlying consensus protocol or mechanism to validate the addition of new blocks to a blockchain from the Proof-of-Work (PoW) to the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus protocol.

Indeed, this reduces the work of processing and the consumption of energy for the so-called mining of new blocks or Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), and the extending of a blockchain with these new blocks or tokens.

But the PoS consensus suffers from the nothing-at-stake problem.
In addition, the PoS does not solve the legal issues with

because C.S. must allow all related modifications of the Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

We also note that according to another illegal crypto platform "[a] Network and Consensus Layer [is] Responsible for communication between the validators of the network [and] Follows Byzantine Fault Tolerance [(BFT) protocol or] Model, similar to most Proof of Stake blockchains."

We also note that we have already discussed illegal crypto platforms based on the BFT protocol and PoS consensus, and we do not expect that the situation will improve in general.
Quite contrary, solving one problem only leads to another problem and also reveals further problems. For example, crypto platforms have to be executed or operated in a secure and safe environment, and here we are already with our OS with its

as well.

We also note that we have already shown that the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) (P2P VM) Askemos is based on our

• Neural Network (NN),
• Virtual Machine (VM),
• fault-tolerant Distributed operating system (Dos),
• and so on,

and

• fields of log-based FileSystem (FS) and transactional DataBase Management System (DBMS),
• Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability (ACID) transaction feature,
• blockchain technique,
• and so on,

and therefore Askemos is not that alleged legal loophole at all.

Howsoever, with further modifying and opening of our OS in around 10 or 15 years, other crypto platforms might be eligible to become legal Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) hooked into our Universal Ledger (UL). All those already existing illegal cryptocurrencies are not eligibile, because fraud will not be rewareded, for sure not.
But at first comes our Stake-of-Claim (SoC) consensus protocol in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), because the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) has already been validated by being the creator of our Evoos and our OS and holding the copyright. :)

23.September.2022

Ontolix and Ontolinux Further steps

We worked on one of the infinitely many functionalities of our Ontologic System Components (OSC) and related Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

12:08 UTC+2
OpenXR is illegal FOSS

**** Proof-reading mode ***
The acronym XR stands for eXtended Realtiy, which are the short form for eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR).
We have already proven some years ago that is our OS was taken as source of inspiration and blueprint for the definition of XR.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject OpenXR: "OpenXR is an open, royalty-free standard for access to virtual reality and augmented reality platforms and devices.[3 [Khronos Releases OpenXR 0.90 Provisional Specification for High-performance Access to AR and VR Platforms and Devices. [19th of March 2020.]] It is developed by a working group managed by the Khronos Group consortium. OpenXR was announced by the Khronos Group on February 27, 2017 during GDC 2017.[4][5][6] A provisional version of the standard was released on March 18, 2019 to enable developers and implementers to provide feedback on it.[3] On July 29, 2019, OpenXR 1.0 was released to the public by Khronos Group at SIGGRAPH 2019.[7 [Khronos Releases OpenXR 1.0 Specification Establishing a Foundation for the AR and VR Ecosystem". The Khronos Group. 2019-07-29]
Reviewers of the 0.90 provisional release considered that the aim of OpenXR was to "Solve AR/VR Fragmentation".[8]"

Architecture
The standard provides an API aimed for application developers targeting virtual reality or augmented reality hardware. This enables developers to build applications that will work across a wide variety of devices.[9]"

Comment
It is extra bold that the Khronos Group even went on with its illegal activities after we established our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

For sure, we would not object such (a specification of) a standard Application Programming Interface (API), if it would be based on prior art. But as far as we do know no API, function library, framework, system, and so on, which is integrating

existed before the publication of our

because AR was considered somehow even as a career killer in 1999 and still as exotic in 2006.
If such a solution would have existed in

The Khronos Group consortium is in no way an entity, that is allowed to standardize our properties in whole or in part, even if

In fact, only C.S. is allowed to specify, license, implement, and provide an API to our integrating architectures and all entities concerned and interested had more than 11 years time to contact us for an specification of an API and an implementation of this part of our Evoos with its EosA and our OS with its OSA.
But that conspiracy and criminal act does not change the law and order and therefore the only legally eligible entity in this case and in all other cases of standardization of parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., for example Industry 4.0 and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computer Vision (CV), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Autonomic Computing (AC), and so on), is our SOPR.

OpenXR or its support has to be

• Microsoft HoloLens 2 and the Windows Mixed Reality headsets,
• Meta (Facebook) Oculus PC platform and the Quest/Quest2 devices,
• HTC VIVE Cosmos and VIVE Focus 3, which are part of HTC's partly illegal VIVERSE ecosystem,
• Qualcomm Snapdragon Spaces XR Developer Platform, and
• Microsoft Edge, Alphabet (Google) Chrome, and all other web browsers, and also
• Unreal Engine,
• Blender,
• Unity,
• and so on,

or

Alternatively, OpenXR is not merely renamed into OpenMR, but split into OpenVR and OpenAR and implemented, presented, and distributed separately, which means the related APIs and function libraries are not included in a common library, framework, toolkit, platform, or system and is not presented under the terms eXtended Reality (XR), eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR), space, metaverse, and other terms, which would confuse and mislead the public about the true origin of our original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S..

The whole issue is another bold act and prime example how that illegal method works: Single parts of our Evoos with its EosA and our OS with its OSA are taken as source of inspiration and blueprint, implemented, and then connected, combined, and integrated with the goal to eventually get control over our properties, which means to steal them.
Therefore, the related regulations of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, specifically no FOSS and mandatory API broker or mediator by our SOPR.

Entities have to sign the set of legal documents, including the license contract, to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, including our Evoos.

By the way:

• no revenue is generated and no tax is payed, and
• no characterization and recognition as a not-for-profit venture, group, foundation, consortium, or company respectively Non-Profit Organization (NPO) is not given.

All of the exemplary technologies, goods, and services listed above are purely private and even proprietary commercial items.

14:24, 17:26, and 22:19 UTC+2
CNN refuses democracy and lies again

Once again, the media company publicated misleading fabricated reports about our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., which is also called OS and includes our

very well knowing that their contents are wrong and even about serious criminal activities.

We quote a first report, which is about confusing and misleading the public about our OS and Ov, selling our virtual and digital assets, and providing our technologies, goods, and services in illegal and even serious criminal ways: "[...]
Speak to people working in the metaverse our Ontoverse and one descriptor follows it around: "It's like the Wild West." Make of that what you will. Is it a new frontier for people seeking their fortune? A lawless land? A place characterized by the unknown, removed from the rest of society? Perhaps all of the above. [...] [That is definitely not the case, because C.S. has created the Ontoverse (Ov) and therefore holds the copyright worldwide.]
The metaverse Our Ontoverse -- a growing number of immersive virtual online worlds where users live and play -- has become a hotbed of real estate speculation. Investors are betting on it being an integral part of a possible paradigm shift in how we use the internet -- a decentralized version [wrongly and illegally] called Web3, which its supporters argue will wrest control of the web from big tech companies and distribute power, privacy and security back to users. [That is definitely not the case, because C.S. has created the Ontoverse (Ov) and therefore holds the copyright worldwide.]
[...]
But real virtual estate values have had a rocky ride. Land prices in the four major metaverse illegal Ontoverse Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platforms, The Sandbox, Decentraland, Cryptovoxels and Somnium Space, have fallen 50 to 80% this year, according to [... a] CEO and co-founder of [a] metaverse analytics company [...]. He pointed to problems in the real-world economy and the cryptocurrency market as contributing to the decline.
[...]
[...] Once completed, [a project] is deployed into a metaverse our one and only Ontoverse.
[...]
[...] others are trying to generate revenue from their land [...] others are renting their land to brands trying to reach consumers in the metaverse our Ontoverse [...]
[The illegal Ontoverse Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platform] LandVault claims to be the biggest [and hence most criminal virtual] land developer in the metaverse our Ontoverse, renting its our stolen virtual land to brands and developing campaigns for them. Just don't call it advertizing, insists [its] CEO [...]. "In Web3 our Ontoverse with our Web 3.0 ... the word actually doesn't have a place," he said. "What we're building is not advertizing. It's brand experiences, which is very different." [One can call it whatsoever, but we call it a serious crime to steal our digital and virtual assets and rent them to other entities.]
[...]
"(Online) advertising as we know it, intrusive ... compromising user data and so on -- that just doesn't have a place in Web3 our Ontoverse with our Web 3.0." [In general, that dude or any other entity does not decide how our rights and properties are exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..]
[...]
"We want to adhere to the ethos of decentralization," [another serious criminal CEO] said, but the sale model also speaks to the uncertainty that hangs over investing in the [illegal] metaverse. "It's very difficult to know which [illegal] metaverse is going to be the most popular in one year or five years," she said. [That is very easy to know for everybody, who knows what the copyright law truly means: It is our one and only, original and unique Ontoverse, but none of those illegal plagiarisms.]
[...] has enlisted the services of elite [...] brokers [...]
[...]
[The other serious criminal CEO] disputed the idea [her illegal virtual estate development project] was an example of the metaverse our Ontoverse heading towards social stratification. "This is about owning one of the first seminal works of three-dimensional inhabitable art in a our new media. And I think that's a very different conversation (to), 'we're building a country club that only 30 people can join,'" she argued.
[...]
Given the short lifetime and rapid acceleration of the [illegal] metaverse, long-term forecasting is hazardous -- especially as the property market experiences growing pains. But could real estate in the [illegal] metaverse ever become as reliable an investment as bricks and mortar? Or could this be [the illegal] Web3's equivalent of the dot-com bubble? [We have already discussed and regulated everything related and given serious warnings against any infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corporation.]
[...]
"It's very possible that real virtual estate in the [illegal] metaverse is a stable investment in the future," said [the CEO], of analytics company [...]. [A closer look at the related issues of our SOPR shows that we have everything reguated in the way how we do want it. See the comment to second quote below.]
[...]"

Comment
See the comment to the second quote below.

We quote a second report, which is about confusing and misleading the public about our OS and Ov, and publicated and camouflaged as an opinion of a criminal author, editor, and investor: "[...]
An immersive, always-on experience, the metaverse our Ontoverse is an amalgamation [respectively integration] of blockchain, virtual reality, augmented reality, mobile, and computer technologies[, and much more].
[...]
[...] visiting different metaverses [...]
[...]

Intellectual property rights and protection
Determining jurisdiction in the metaverse will be tricky. Does it apply to the user's location, the location of the avatar, or the location of the computer infrastructure? Intellectual property will be a challenge in the metaverse because content is distributed and replicated across decentralized networks.

Security
The multi-layered structure of the virtual cybernetical or cyber-physical environment could enable bad actors to hide behind encryption and untraceable NFTs (non-fungible tokens -- which are unique digital assets), making it difficult to identify them and take action.
NFTs will be the linchpin of the metaverse our Ontoverse economy, enabling authentication of possessions, property and identity. Yet the European Parliament highlights regulatory risks for NFTs -- for example, the difference between owning an NFT and owning the right to exploit a copy of a copyrighted digital work.
An NFT cannot exist without an underlying digital asset (for example, an artwork), and copyright protection only exists for the asset to which the NFT attaches, not for the NFT itself. There is often a loose link between an NFT and the asset it refers to.
Counterfeiting is an emergent problem; there are currently no standards and regulatory oversight of NFTs is lagging.
The metaverse Our Ontoverse provides the potential for inadvertent or deliberate automation of unethical conduct at scale, and a plethora of ethical questions arise.

How can we assure informed consent when it comes to personal data?
Ideally, consent should be informed, but the immersion experience in The metaverse Our Ontoverse will require the integration of access points [...] [This is already given by the design of the Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and also the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.]
[...]
[...] The the metaverse our Ontoverse will transform humanity at a depth and scale seldom seen."

Comment
Obviously, what is wrongly called metaverse is the related part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov) and our work of art is definitely not the Wild West, because we have all rights worldwide, including the

and so on, but no other entity.

We also note that there is only one original and unique Metaverse and only one original and unique Ontoverse, including our original and unique, one and only metaverse multiverse, and we have no clue why the author is telling such an utter nonsense about different metaverses.
In addition, one can see once again that the ethos of decentralization is just only cheap populism, simple marketing, fast business making, and even fraud, but eventually nothing related to what is wrongly called Decentralized Web (DWeb) and Web3, including Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce), Decentralized EXchange (DEX), crypto, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), digital and virtual currencies, digital and virtual estates, marketplaces, etc..

But those illegal platforms and their supporters are also mimicking and reflecting C.S. with those so-called "three-dimensional inhabitable art in a our new media" in several ways, which have not been allowed explicitely by us as part of our proposed societal compromise for opening and licensing the orginal and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
The first illegal way is selling our digital and virtual property as virtual land, only because we use the term OntoLand (OL) from time to time.
Furthermore, we have also explained that C.S. has also created the OS with its Ov as "a new media", which we also circumscribe as a new set of canvas, paint, and paintbrush, and also easel for better understanding by the brought public, to create more works of art with respectively in our OS, which include three-dimensional art in our new media, including our digital and virtual fashion of our multimedia work of art project MultiCouture™ as well as our multimedia work of art projects related to Algorithmic/Generative/Evolutionary/Organic ... Art/Science and our field of iArchitecture™, and also those other works of others, who most of them are only ordinary bandwagon jumpers or bandwagoneers, freeloaders, and plagiarists.
But C.S. has not given the allowance to misuse our OS for

which are even done on the basis of illegal cryptocurrencies, which are also copying and using the related part of our OS without allowance.

Indeed, we also do think that this is a very different conversation to, "we're building a country club that only 30 people can join" or a 3D Virtual World (VW) or Virtual Environment (VW), which people only use for video gaming, chatting, gathering, and experiencing rudimentary multimedia.

In fact, these facts also show once again that C.S. has created this new media and this new art movement of three-dimensional inhabitable art in a our new media" as well, because our Ontoverse is the first work of art and therefore does enjoy protection by the copyright.
It also shows that other or most potentially even the same and already known bad actors worked out a way once again to inflict a maximum damage for C.S..

For these very easy to understand legal reasons,

Guess why the values of these virtual and digitial properties stolen from us have fallen? We cracked down both, the illegal crypto crap and the illegal sale of our virtual and digital assets.

In addition, the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their fabrics, and management and orchestration Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) are being realized right now by our SOPR and its Main Contractors (MCs) to provide social, societal, artistical, legal, scientifical, technological, and economical safety and security, which no entity has at this time. Virtually everything has already been discussed and regulated by us.
For example, jurisdiction is determined by the location of the real infrastructure with its set of fundamental

We also discussed and explained how the other subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our SOPR work, such as our

The rest is happening in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also know as the OntoLand (OL).

Once again, we have no clue about what is that criminal author talking about. But we can already see that she has huge personal deficits and other incompetences.
At least, that author is right one time with her opinion: "The metaverse Our Ontoverse will transform humanity at a depth and scale seldom seen." This proves once again why C.S. holds the copyright for our OS with its Ov and Os, including what is wrongly called metaverse and Web3.

More clever entities are understanding how serious their legal situation truly is, while other entities are better understanding their legal situation more and more.
Howsoever, all those companies will get a very serious letter from our legal team with our demand to either reverse all of their fraudulent actions or get no license from our SOPR and be blacklisted and thrown out of the registry of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which is a part the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and managed, controlled, orchestrated, and monitored by our SOPR, because infringing the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, digital and virtual assets, and online advertisement estate) of C.S. and our corproation, specifically stealing our digital and virtual assets in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), and renting them to other entities, is still considered a serious crime in the Physical Reality (PR).

By the way:

25.September.2022

Ontonics Further steps

Since some few months, we are thinking about a developing problem to find a solution. And while thinking a little about other recent developments today, we suddenly concluded that we already have the technology on stock since some years and only need to adapt it.

26.September.2022

Ontonics Further steps

We worked on the next steps of 2 older projects, specifically on the

We are also thinking if and how we should make them SuperBolts and add them to the Blitz Fund II.

Ontonics Blitz Fund I #29.4.17

Our SuperBolt #4 Electric Power (EP) worked on the next step of 1 older project, specifically on the construction of infrastructures with their set of fundamental

in the area between the U.K. and the European Union (EU), which should benefit both economical zones regarding cost efficiency, energy safety and security, and eventually sovereingty.

28.September.2022

17:50 UTC+2
MultiCouture in Ontoverse also protected

We would like to recall that (the related part of ) our multimedia work of art project MultiCouture™, also wrongly called tech couture, is now recognized as new form of fashion and therefore another new art movement and culture, as proven by statements like

besides our new art movement of three-dimensional art in our new media, which is the metaverse our Ontoverse (Ov), as proven by the statement like

which all was created as part of our original and unique, personal, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System with its Ontoverse (Ov) and created by C.S., and therefore also enjoys a certain copyright protection worldwide.

By the way:

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically in relation to the copyright, and
• regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

do apply worldwide, including the U.S.America, the U.K., the European Union, the P.R.China, and the other countries having a society based on law and order.