Lawmakers can debate about the regulation of the management tasks, the execution taks, and the realization or implementation tasks, as already done in the general cases of

and also the special cases of

with us and only with our SOPR, but not with anybody else and not about more.
We also would like to recall that one of the conditions for modifying and opening our OS is that it will not be politicized.

In fact, we can only see another attempt of very well known and other criminal entities and self-exposers to steal our AWs and IPs.

19:50 and 22:06 UTC+2
SOPR considering details of ToS and LM 2023

We noticed some deficits in relation to the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) 2023 of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

First of all, we would like to make clear that the LM for HardWare (HW) is not subject of any revision. In fact, there are not many options and is not much margin for drafting Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions in general.
But we would also like to recall that one cannot have the HardWare (HW) without the SoftWare (SW), both based on our Ontologic System (OS), and vice versa.
In addition, we have unrestricted access to raw signals and data, which also belong to us in the

and licensees have to allow the access to certain raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms according to the related regulation of the Terms of Services (ToS) for the benefit of all members and licensing partners of our SOPR.

Furthermore, because we will not give the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, specifically for the realization of proprietary backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our SOPR, including Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platforms, also wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid, Cloud, Edge, Fog (GCFE) platforms, etc., the royalties in case of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class and according to the old LM 2022 might still be FRANDAC.
But eventually, we changed that part of the LM completely with our OAOS platform and the royalty of 30% of the generated revenue for artists and implementers of OAOS.
As a consequence, what is wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, and Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCFE) data centers, systems, and platforms is dead, as is the case for all illegal operating systems, reality environments, other service platforms, and other technologies, infrastructures, and so on. Our SOPR guarantees and protects

pro bono publico==for the public good in general and the users in particular, who will not be locked in multiple proprietary ecosystems anymore.

The ownership regulation is correct in relation to SOEs, but the situation is more complex in relation to the competition between SOEs and private companies, because we have

At least in the European Union (EU), the competition law prohibits that raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms of platform customers are used by service providers for own goods and services, which compete with the goods and services of these customers (on the same platform).
But this is also part of the compromise for allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which is a completely different situation than for example the situation of a service provider, that provides services for traders of goods on its Electronic Commerce (EC) platform respectively online market place, but also goods itself, which compete with the goods of said traders and service customers (on the same online market place).

05.April.2023

01:17, 10:56, and 15:05 UTC+2
Salesforce still in LaLaLand

For sure, the company Salesforce is on our radar with its still not allowed and licensed respectively illegal performance and reproduction of parts of our

• Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and
• (foundation of) Service-Oriented technologies (SOx),
• (foundation of) (core) Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (IaaSx), including
  • (utility) Technology as a Service (TaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (TaaSx), including (utility)
    • Platform as a Service (PaaS) technologies (PaaSx),
    • Service as a Service (SaaS) technologies (SaaSx), and
    • Data as a Service (DaaS) technologies (DaaSx),
• (foundation of) HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI or ComI) (e.g. Artifical Neural Network (ANN) and Evolutionary Computing (EC)), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Computer Audition (CA), Soft Computing (SC), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or Cognitive System (CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), etc.), specifically our
  • (foundation of) Autonomic Computing (AC), and Robotic Automation (RA) or Robotic Process Automation (RPG),
  • generative and creative Bionics, and
  • Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA), and also
• Multimodal User Interface (MUI), and
• (foundation of) Web 3.0,

and

• Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and
• Ontologic System Components (OSC), specifically our
  • Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) and
  • Ontologic File System (OntoFS or OFS),

since its collaboration with the company Microsoft, squeezing the companies SAP and Oracle out of the market, launch of various platforms, and takeover of various companies.

Furthermore, we can see that Salesforce appears to be complying to the suggested 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) as of the end of December 2022.

But we also have to note that we

• integrating OSA,
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platform, also wrongly called Web Services (WS) platform, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) platform, etc.,
• Communication and Collaboration System (CoCoS or Co²S), and
• all the other subsystem and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and also
• Ontologic Economic System (OES),

which are common for all members and licensees of our SOPR to guarantee and protect

• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• rights and properties of other entities,
• neutrality, fairness, interoperability, transparency, integrity, security, safety, etc., and
• freedom of choice, innovation, and competition

pro bono publico==for the public good in general and the users in particular, who will not be locked in multiple proprietary ecosystems anymore,

• Salesforce's attempts to steal parts of our OS, for example with Heroku PaaSx purchased in 2010 and Einstein Analytics Data Science and Analytics (DSA) Artificial Intelligence (AI) platform launched in 2016, Lightning Flow Robotic Process Automation (RPA) launched in 2018, and Tableau Software purchased 2019,
• Slack's attempt to steal a part of our OS related to Communication and Collaboration (CoCo or Co²) infrastructure automation and the reason why Salesforce attempts to continue that with the purchase of in 2021,
• Salesforce's attempts to damage the goals and even threaten the integrities of C.S. and our corporation,

• have already been created by C.S. and publicated in the years 1999 and 2006, and
• are already exclusively managed and exploited by our SOPR with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

By the way:

17:20, 19:03, and 20:18 UTC+2
Rule-based competition law required

We quote and translate a report, which is about the proposed 11th amendment of the competition law in the F.R.Germany and was publicated today: "The F.R.German cabinet has approved a reform of the competition law. The bill provides for an expansion of the powers of the federal cartel office. The ministry of economics said that the aim was to put an end to disruptions to competition so that consumers could benefit from lower prices. This is particularly important in markets with only a few suppliers and conspicuous price developments.
[...]
[...] The planned amendment is one of the biggest reforms of competition law in recent decades, he said.

Unbundling of companies also possible
According to the draft law, the federal cartel office will no longer have to prove specific anti-competitive behavior by companies, but will be able to take action as soon as the market is disturbed. The German government hopes to achieve fair competition by enabling the federal cartel office to order measures directly following a sector review - the examination of entire industries. "For example, market access can be facilitated, concentration tendencies can be stopped, or - in extreme cases and as ultima ratio - companies can be unbundled," according to the federal ministry of economics.
In addition, in the case of cartel violations, it is to become easier to skim off advantages that have accrued to companies as a result. The remedy already exists, but with high legal hurdles. These are now to be lowered. Accordingly, in the future, the mere presumption that a violation of competition rules has "caused an economic advantage" would be sufficient to skim off profits. And, "the amount of the economic advantage can be estimated." Previously, it had to be determined precisely.

Criticism from the business community
Criticism of the planned reform came from the business community. The chief legal counsel of the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce [...] spoke of a paradigm shift toward state market design as a last resort. "Lawful action no longer protects companies from state intervention as soon as the federal cartel office, in its broad discretion, considers competition to have been disturbed over a longer period of time." In doing so, he said, the F.R.German government is abandoning the tried-and-tested basic principles of European competition law.
[... A] member of the executive board of the Federation of German Industries, commented: "Germany is currently struggling to remain competitive internationally in many areas. With this national legislative solo act, the federal government is further weakening the location.""

Comment
We always say that no reform of the competition law is required, but consistent and rigorous application of it.
And the task is to break up illegal monopolies and cliques, but not to introduce another amendment to the competition law, which allows autocratic and socialistic market control and puts every company under general suspicion.
But the fact is that responsible entities, including the market regulators, antitrust watchdogs, or competition authorities in the U.S.America and European Union were not willing to recognize illegal monopolies in the last decades, even when virtually all experts and entities concerned said that such a situation does exist in specific cases.

Required is a rule-based competition law, but not the possibility, which allows public servants, who are non-specialist in the individual market sectors and businesses, to make a subjective presumption and decision (without any proof), and even to estimate the economic advantage directly and eventually the market value of rights and properties indirectly.
According to another report the "Federal justice minister [...] defended the law and considers the accusation of a "blank check" for the cartel office to be unjustified. The legal description of the measures was "very strongly specified" [...]".
We will see if this is truly the case, whether it will stand up to the scrutiny of the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, and if and how it works in practice eventually, and also recommend that they should begin with their State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) at first.

We also wonder why we have the impression that the proposed revision looks like a Trojan horse to introduce state market design, indeed, which is enforced by the observation of an applied populism based on volatile and high gasoline prices as justification.

19:03 UTC+2
OS and SOPR already providing interoperability

In this relation, we would like to ask if somebody could be so nice and tell the media and communications regulator as well as the market regulator of the U.K. that

By demanding fairness and interoperability, and mimicking our SOPR in this area as well, Alphabet (Google) is not only squeezing itself between us and the general public respectively between us and the personal rights, the copyright, and other rights, but is now also squeezing itself between us and the market regulators respectively between us and the competition law.
And that the supertroll made this complaint is only highly ridiculous and does not improve the overall situation nor the situation of that company.
See also the

What a dirty but eventually unsuccesful attempt to infringe the rights and steal the properties of C.S. and our corporation, now that those companies are loosing it all and have to give back all the rights and properties stolen from us. But this merely shows that they have no chance to get our OS in a legal way and by conducting most aggressive theft, manipulation of markets, and spread of fake news, and therefore are now trying to politicize and democratize it to expropriate and steal it by bending the competition and copyright laws.
See also for example the note

And to get further related informations see also the notes

06.April.2023

13:06 UTC+2
SOPR confirmed Social Media Safety Act

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has confirmed the Social Media Safety Act of the state Arkansas, U.S.America, which "would require social media companies to verify their users' ages and confirm that minors have permission from a parent or guardian before opening an account".
This act reflects the common procedure of enrollment at schools and in sports clubs, and for other circumstances with some kind of a legal framework and business relationship, and is much better than the law of the state Utah, U.S.America, "which additionally requires that parents have access to their teens' accounts, imposes a curfew and bans all ads for minors on social media platforms", though access to the accounts should be granted until 14 years.

13:19 UTC+2
No loss of control over the climate

We cannot see any danger of loosing control of the climate. Quite contrary, our weather control, clean up, and terrafroming projects have only a delay of several months, but that is irrelevant.
U.S.America, European Union, P.R.China, C.Australia, R.India, U.A.Emirates, S.Qatar, K.Saudi Arabia, and so on are all on board.

14:59 UTC+2
SOPR considering 2 Ontoscope series

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is still considering 2 series of the various variants of our Ontoscope (Os), which is also wrongly called Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Android Smarttablet, Android Smartwatches, Android TVs, etc., Google Pixel, Samsung Galaxy, Samsung Tab, smartwatch, Apple iPhone, Apple iPad, Apple Watch, smartTV, smartcar, and so on:

We also would like to recall the mandatory Ontologic operating system Cores (OntoCores or OCs) and Ontologic System (OS) movements of our SOPR.

07.April.2023

14:24 and 20:32 UTC+2
Exclusive infrastructures, etc. aligned to laws, court-proof, etc.

Because we have the impression that some entities, specifically politicians, commissioners, public servants, journalists, members of cliques, and other entities concerned, who still want to ignore, disrespect, and debate the rights and properties, and damage the goals, and even threaten the integrities of C.S. and our corporation, we would like to recall once again that the

• facilities (e.g. buildings, data centers, exchange points or hubs, and communication channels),
• technologies (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also environments, systems, platforms, frameworks),
• goods (e.g. applications, devices, robots, and vehicles), and
• services,

were always drafted and hence already aligned with the national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters in wise foresight, and therefore considered as court-proof by us.
And the modification of our OS is already that other entities are allowed to use it and create own OAOS, which are added to our OS throught the one and only OAOS platform of said exclusive infrastructures.

They want something from us and therefore they depend on us and there is no level playing field in this specific respect by us.

In this relation, we would like to note that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not the subjects for competition and market regulation at all.
Therefore, the terms and conditions, which a fraudulent or even criminal entity demands and applies for a plagiarism or stolen good is not the basis for the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions and the street price the true owner is allowed to take.
For example, if app stores make a cut of 10 to 30%, then our SOPR is not bind to that and we already said that for authors a cut of 80% by a publisher is considered as FRANDAC and with our OS a cut of 70% by our OAOS platform is also considered FRANDAC, because our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) have Autonomic Computing (AC), generative and creative Bionics, Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), and all the other original and unique, interesting things created and creatively compiled, integrated, and so on by C.S., and therefore the task of designing and implementing hardware and software has been reduced by us to the level of writing a book, as promised by us for example as part of the digitalization and transformation of the workplaces in particular and the societies in general. Therefore once again, our AWs and IPs are not the subject of competition and regulation.
What the suppliers and the service providers of our SOPR and our other Societies take, is a different legal situation and business case and if they demand too much, then we do it per se or go to the market regulators.

Nobody else than C.S. had something like our Evoos and our OS in the mind, on the radar, or in the portfolio at that time and for several years after their presentations, and some already existing single parts were esoteric, exotic, experimental, or just not working at all. But we have it all since 1998.
Hopefully, anybody has now the correct understanding and view on this matter.

Interoperability inside.

20:40 UTC+2
UBS has to stop copyright infringement immediately

With our original and unique works of art also titled Evolutionary operating system and titled Ontologic System, both created by C.S., we created what is called 5G Next Generation (5G NG) by us and what is wrongly called predictive modelling, generative AI, cloud-delivered AI, cloud-based programming, agent, assistant, etc., Industry 4.0 and 5.0, 6G, and so on by others, and all already exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..
Therefore, not referecing C.S. and our corporation is a infringement of the copyright of C.S. and the company UBS has to stop said infringements and other illegal activities, such as taking our original and unique, personal, and copyrighted expression of ideas for its marketing and to confuse the public of the true origin of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. immediately or our SOPR will take decisive actions.

By the way:

• go back to the state of the art of the years 1999 and 2006,
• disassemble again Windows, Azure, Office, and so on completely in case of Microsoft, and Android, Google online services, and so on in case of Alphabet (Google), and
• cut all connectivity, interoperability, and integration, and also
• forget Mobile Computing on our Ontoscope, and a lot of other fields of utilization (e.g. Robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), media, etc.), and so on,

only to find out that what is left as safe is not so much at all, simply said their core businesses as of the end of 2006 without our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and what is required from us is virtually all the interesting things, and the cut of 70% + royalty of 30% is Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC).

08.April.2023

08:41 UTC+2
Giant mess at the stock markets

We already mentioned the huge mess with the ridiculously high valuations of certain companies at the stock markets, specifically of those companies, that

• essential parts of our Ontologic System (OS) stolen and
• business units of our corporation mimicked by them

and

This situation is already astonishing and its dissolution and elimination would be an even more astonishing task, whereby we have not added the outcome of the lawsuits of betrayed investors.
But all those morons concerned are still thinking they could negotiate with us, take us for a ride, and reject our solution despite the situation is already chaotic and there is no room for any bad actions anymore on the one hand and our solution does not establish and provide a level playing field on the other hand, because legally it is not possible, but enables a means of checks and balances of the powers of the cliques of countries on the one side and us on the other side.
And that is not all.

Around a week ago, we also looked at some few hundreds of investment products and at around 70 investment funds in more detail of only one investment company (Deka, "The securities house of the Sparkasse") and some few funds of JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and others in relation to high-technology (e.g. Bionics, Robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), New Energy™, Biotechnology, etc.), sustainable energy, (private) equity, pension, and insurance, which are representative for the whole investment sector, and what we saw is quite disturbing, because a lot of these funds list said fraudulent and even serious criminal companies in their top ten lists of investments.
In fact, they thought to be very clever and also created another giant mess on top of that already existing huge mess, which is always a typical recipe for a financial disaster.

Honestly, we are unable to discuss the matter in a way, which would be politically correct.

11.April.2023

18:35 and 20:39 UTC+2
SOPR decided crypto exchange ends in summer

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided that the deadline for the exchange of any illegal crypto thing to a legal thing by the announced 40% cut + 60% regulation ends in the summer of 2023, which means no exchange to our Ontologic Fininacial System (OFinS) through real banks will be accepted anymore after the 23rd of September 2023.
We highly recommend to get out of any crypto thing or face total loss in the autumn of 2023.

Banks and other financial institutions, that are still providing financial services on the basis of any illegal crypto thing after the 23rd of September 2023, will face expensive measures by our SOPR.

Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs), that are still promoting any illegal crypto thing for whatsoever or using it for any transaction after the 23rd of September 2023, will face blacklisting and being blocked from the financial services of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), including

All entities concerned got more than 2 years to adapt to a truly legal environment.

20:55 UTC+2
Alibaba still in LaLaLand

The company Alibaba has to comply with the

There will be no excemptions for any entity, because for example what is wrongly called Grid Computing (GC or GridC) and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and generative Artificial Intelligence, and also their integration are essential parts of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
And we already made clear that our Hightech Office Ontonics does have very convincing arguments for the governments to establish a rule-based law and order environment (e.g. win-win, access to the markets in North America, Europe, and other highly interesting and most lucrative locations, sustainable License Model (LM), undisclosed matters, etc.). :)

20:55 UTC+2
Clarification

By the way:

12.April.2023

20:53 UTC+2
Clarification

We already discussed the matter multiple times over the last years, but with the utilization of the part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS), which is (actually) called generative and creative Bionics by us and also wrongly called generative Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, textbot, speechbot (not to be confused with Compaq's SpeechBot for indexing multimedia), etc. by others, the subject of the copyright became actual once again.

We quote and translate a report, which is about the lawsuit Kraftwerk vs. Pelham, sampling of musical works, and freedom of artistic expression, and was publicated on the 29th of July 2019: "[...]
In May 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court finally ruled in favor of Moses Pelham - in contrast to the courts before: Copyright law must sometimes take a back seat for art, according to the message from [the court located in the town] Karlsruhe[, F.R.Germany]. Producers should not have a "prohibitive power" with which they could prevent the creation of new works of art. A stage victory for artistic freedom.
The judges considered the copyrights and thus the property interests of the music producers to be protected: Sampling does not lead to economic losses, as the adopted sound snippet is still present in the original piece. In addition, producers could continue to have too brazen sampling banned. And: The legislator could introduce a remuneration obligation for the use of foreign music snippets.
[...]
The Luxembourg judges [at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)] ruled: A musician, who wants to take over sequences from other people's pieces, needs the permission of the author - even if the sequences are only very short. There is an exception if the musician creates something completely new and introduces the audio fragment into the new work "in a modified form, that is not recognizable when listening to it". Only then would consent not be required.
In addition, the use of foreign music snippets, that are recognizable in the new work without permission, can only be permissible as a "quotation" in exceptional cases. However, it must then have the goal of interacting with the original work, i.e., of dealing with it."]

Comment
First of all, we recall that the freedom of expression includes the freedom of artistic expression and belongs to the fundamental rights.

Furthermore, we recall that we discussed this specific legal dispute at that time in the year 2019 and

We also compared the legal situation with the one of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and the many plagiarisms of them, such as for example Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android, Wear OS, Harmony, DuerOS, etc., and Android Smartphone, Apple iOS, watchOS, etc., and iPhone, Microsoft Windows and Azure, Amazon Web Services, Alibaba Cloud, Baidu, Tencent, Cisco, Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm, etc., Porsche SE/Volkswagen, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, and Co. smartcar, and so on.

Accordingly, we simply transform the ruling of the ECJ: An entity, that wants to take over parts form other people's artworks, needs the permission of the creator - even if the parts are only very small. There is an exception if the entity creates something completely new and introduces the original fragment into the new work in a modified form, that is not recognizable (by the audience respectively broad public), when consuming, enjoying, experiencing, etc. it.
This also clarifies how to handle works, which are generated by utilizing our generative Bionics, including texts, pictures, videos, music pieces, etc..

The case of the oeuvre of C.S. is already crystal clear.
The various initial offers for licensing the performance and reproduction of our AWs and IPs proposed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) have been ignored, undermined, or rejected by bad actors. Therefore, we have withdrawn them, including the proposed modifications of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), specifically the Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and the Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which are unneccessary to guarantee and protect

pro bono publico==for the public good in general and the users in particular.

There is no fair use and no Application Programming Interface (API). There is creation (e.g. writing, painting, modelling, sculpturing, recording, composing, designing, generating, etc.), dialog, conversation, and collaboration with our OntoBot and the other Ontologic System Components (OSC), the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and the Ontoscope Components (OsC), and also the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
No other os, OS, Cloud, etc., no other smartphone, smartwatch, smartcar, smarthome, etc., no other this and that, whatsoever, etc.. The debate is over, because those entities, that are depending on our AWs and IPs, and eventually on us, refused to communicate, debate, collaborate, etc. with us, while we do not need to do so.

13.April.2023

12:16, 12:39, and 17:55 UTC+2
EU AI Act only relevant for our SOPR, if at all

European Union (EU)
Artifical Intelligence (AI)

Our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS), including the part of them, which is (actually) called generative Bionics by us and also wrongly called generative AI, chatbot, textbot, speechbot (not to be confused with Compaq's SpeechBot for indexing multimedia), etc. by others, including plagiarisms of them, like so-called transformers and perceivers, Large Language Models (LLMs), etc., are high-risk

In wise foresight and for these high-risk reasons, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) introduced regulations in its usual Terms of Services (ToS) regarding the utilization of the original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use creations of C.S. for

• Artificial Intelligence as a Service (AIaaS) technologies (AIaaSx),
• Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) technologies (MLaaSx),
• Computational Intelligence as a Service (CIaaS) technologies (CIaaSx),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN) as a Service (ANNaaS) technologies (ANNaaSx),
• Computer Vision (CV) as a Services (CVaaS) technologies (CVaaSx),
• and so on,

• creation (e.g. writing, painting, modelling, sculpturing, recording, composing, designing, generating, etc.),
• conversation,
• collaboration,
• integration,
• publication,
• application, and
• provision on our OAOS platform,

Therefore, what other entities, like the companies Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), Alibaba, Baidu, etc. research institutes Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Deutsches Forschungsinstitute für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI)==German Research center for Artificial Intelligence, etc., and so on want is irrelevant, because only our SOPR is allowed to use our Evoos, OntoBot, SBSOx, SBaaSx, OAOS, and related backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms, and our MfE, OES, etc. as part of the manadatory and exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

As we already explained, "we still have solutions, which all the others have not" (see the note We have our OS and go flat out HB and SB of the 29th of March 2023), but are required and all others must have as well once again and as usual. One can also see now why we have developed, improved, and extended our Evoos further to our OS.
The latter underscores the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation even more once again.

As we already said, governments and other entities concerned do not have to talk with universities, research institutes, or the industries, but with our SOPR.

18:39 and 19:14 UTC+2
Thundersoft has to stop copyright infringement immediately

Rightware Kanzi is nothing else than a cheap clone of our Ontologic operating system Core (OntoCore or OC) and OntoScope (OSc) components of our Ontologic System (OS), and also OntoCore One and OS movements, and the related marketing is a copyright infringement, as the

already show, and will become even more obvious and stoppable at the courts worldwide with the illegal integration with what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC).

By the way:

19:54 UTC+2
OSA is composition, integration, etc.

We would also like to recall that our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) is not only an original and unique integrating architecture, but also an original and unique composition.
Therefore, companies like Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Apple, and Co. are erring completely with their strategy to steal our OS (see also for example the note Microsoft and Co. failed with their strategy of the 21st of March 2023) by taking the same individual works of prior art of others and us and simulate a technological progress. No judge will fall for that anymore, as is the case with those illegal Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) (work of art not hardware or software system) to support other entities to realize missing implementations of applications and services, and integrations. Eventually, we will push through the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including exclusive infrastructures with mandatory subsystems and platforms, 70% + 30%, and much more. :)
And they are knowing that we are very right, because otherwise they would not need such fraudulent and even criminal strategies and methods.
Chapter 11 anybody?!

21:20 and 25:40 UTC+2
Amazon still in LaLaLand

Our

belong to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and our

• Artificial Intelligence as a Service (AIaaS) technologies (AIaaSx),
• Machine Learning as a Service (MLaaS) technologies (MLaaSx),
• Computational Intelligence as a Service (CIaaS) technologies (CIaaSx),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN) as a Service (ANNaaS) technologies (ANNaaSx),
• Computer Vision (CV) as a Services (CVaaS) technologies (CVaaSx),
• and so on,

are parts of the related subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and other Societies.

A lot of Amazon is not allowed:

See the other related notes about our AWs and IPs, infringements of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, frauds, blackmailings, conspiracies, etc., and who else is still in LaLaLand.

21:20 and 25:40 UTC+2
Clarification #1

Our OS has already been created and designed to also provide interoperability, or said in other words our OS provides interoperabitlity by creation and design, and therefore no plagiarism, adaption, or modification is required to make our already interoperable OS interoperable at all (see also the note OS and SOPR already providing interoperability of the 5th of April 2023).
Moreover, a

is considered an

• creating a new expression in such a derivative work,
• meeting the required minimum threshold of originality, and also
• being "creations of the mind, literary or artistic, that have an individual character",

or even

which both require the authorization or allowance of C.S. for publication and exploitation anyway, but we have already prohibited any adaption and any distortion or modification anyway.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject of false advertising: "False advertising is defined as the act of publishing, transmitting, or otherwise publicly circulating an advertisement containing a false claim, or statement, made intentionally (or recklessly) to promote the sale of property, goods, or services.[3] A false advertisement can be classified as deceptive if the advertiser deliberately misleads the consumer, rather than making an unintentional mistake. A number of governments use regulations to limit false advertising.

Falsifying quality and origin
Another form of deceptive advertising falsifies the quality or origin of a product. [...] Producers may misrepresent where a product is manufactured, saying (for example) that it was [designed in California or] produced in the United States when it was [created, designed, or] produced in another country.[13]
[...]"]

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject of Lanham (Trademark) Act: "The Lanham (Trademark) Act [...] is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.
[...]

Civil enforcement
[...]
§ 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) is the "likelihood of confusion" standard [...]:
15 U.S.C. § 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
(a)Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) is often used when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a consumer or business. The claimant must prove that a false or misleading statement was made in commerce and that the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) is often used when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business.
[...]"

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject of moral rights: "[...]
Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany,[4] before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928.[5]:37 Canada recognizes moral rights (droits moraux) in its Copyright Act (Loi sur le droit d'auteur).[6] The United States became a signatory to the convention in 1989,[7] and incorporated a version of moral rights under its copyright law under Title 17 of the U.S. Code. The Berne convention is not a self-executing treaty, and the US Berne Convention Implementation Act excludes the US from the moral rights section[citation needed].
Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights.[5]:44-45 In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) recognizes moral rights, but applies only to a narrow subset of works of visual art.[8] [...] The VARA grants artists two specific rights: the right of attribution, and the right of integrity. The right of attribution allows an author to enforce the attribution of their work, prevent the misattribution of their work to another author, and permits the author to retain anonymous or pseudo-anonymous ownership of the work. The right of integrity does its best to prevent distortion or modification of their work, easing an artists' worries surrounding negative defamation directly applied to their work affecting their own personal, creative, or professional reputation through misrepresentation.[9]

[...]

In the United States
Moral rights traditionally have not been recognized in American law.[17] Some elements of moral rights do exist in the United States, but are usually protected through specific contract provisions between parties, or else through individual states' laws or the derivative work rights in U.S. copyright law.[17] U.S. copyright law emphasizes protection of financial reward over protection of creative attribution.[5 [The Soul of Creativity: Forging a Moral Rights Law for the United States. [2010]]]:xiii The exclusive rights tradition in the United States is inconsistent with the notion of moral rights as it was constituted in the Civil Code tradition stemming from post-Revolutionary France. When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention, it stipulated that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, such as laws covering slander and libel.[5]:30
Some individual states have moral rights laws, particularly pertaining to visual art and artists (See, e.g. California Art Preservation Act, Artists Authorship Rights Act (New York)). However, it is unclear if these laws, or portions thereof, are preempted by federal laws, such as the Visual Artists Rights Act.
In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting, the Monty Python comedy troupe made a claim of "mutilation" (akin to a moral rights claim) in 1975 in legal proceedings against American TV network ABC for airing re-edited versions of Monty Python's Flying Circus [(1976)].[18] However, the case was primarily decided on the basis of whether the BBC was licensed in such a way as to allow ABC to edit the videos (paragraph 20). [See also the quote about this case below.]

Visual Artists Rights Act
[...]

Adaptation right
Copyright holders have the right to control adaptations, or the preparation of "derivative works". This right is given under copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. § 106.

Lanham Act
Section 43 of the Lanham Act governs false and misleading advertising, and can apply in some instances to attribution of protected works. However, it cannot be used to create moral rights for works outside of the Act. See Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox [(2003)].
By the start of the twentieth century, U.S. decisions on unfair competition found that representing as the author's work a version of the work that substantially departed from the original was a cause of action.[22] Section §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which protects brands and trademarks, also provides similar protection to laws based on moral rights. For any goods or services, it bans false designation of origin or a false description or representation.[5]:30 In Gilliam v. American Broadcasting the British comedy group called Monty Python took action against the ABC network for broadcasting versions of their programs which had been correctly attributed to them but had been extensively edited, in part to remove content that their audience might consider offensive or obscene. The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was in favor of Monty Python, finding the cuts might be an "actionable mutilation" that violated the Lanham Act.[23]

[...]"

And after this prolog comes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and so on, as warned and announced multiple times in more than 9 years.

21:20 and 25:40 UTC+2
Clarification #2

In relation to all the cases, where entities are still in LaLaLand, we can directly say that they should not come up with that copyright exceptions and claims for fair dealing and fair use nonsense, or that totally ridiculous ruling in the case of Google LLC vs. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. (2021):

• first handheld mobile device, which comprises a telephone, a display, a camera with 1 lens, a web browser, and a Virtual Machine (VM), specifically the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), was already presented by the company Motorola with the smartphone respectively Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) phone model A760 in the year 2003,
• Java Platform, Micro Edition (Java ME) was already
  • working together with the Java Platform, Standard Edition (Java SE) and
  • operating on at least one mobile operating system based on a modified version of the Linux kernel at that time (find yourself the prior art and also the related mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), and other devices),

  and

• first versions of the Android operating system were merely a mobile operating system based on another modified version of the Linux kernel,

14.April.2023

12:46 and 13:11 UTC+2
Stanford University has to stop copyright infringement immediately

We already do have our original and unique

• Human Simulation/Holomer, and
• Algorithmic/Generative/Evolutionary/Organic ... Art/Science.

But we cannot see a reference of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which constitutes a crystal clear infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically an infringement of our copyright, moral rights, as well as other foundational rights and personal rights.

As one can see once again, this is how universities and research institutes steal their way to become better known and get more funding for stealing more.

15.April.2023

15:42 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

Our Hightech Office Ontonics has listed 1,200 unicorns from the U.S.America for legal processing and cashing in.

We also highly appreciate the crack down on start-ups by the U.S.American authorities, which is long overdue.
But the Law and Order Restoration Action (LORA) will become much more interesting when the illegal walled gardens are torn down and incorporated into the garden by the one and only true owner. :)

The worldwide unicorn slaughter festival is picking up steam and it will become even more bloody in Silicon Valley, on Silicon Alley, and at other locations.

We keep promise in this case as well.

16.April.2023

Clarification #1

We view a joint venture or another alliance, that merely does what our corporation, subsidiaries, and business units do, including our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), as conspiracy and plot, and due to his point of view we will act accordingly and decisively.

In general, all those fraudulent and even serious criminal strategies and activities have been busted, investigated, documented, and prepared for legal processing.
We also observe more and more that the social situation is tilting to our side, because we guarantee and protect

pro bono publico==for the public good in general and the users in particular in total contrast to the industries, the academies, and the cliques.

Also, a certain common sense exists that the legal situation will be resolved in a Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) way and in the very near future, or better said now, which eventually results in the compliance with the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) through, including exclusive infrastructures with mandatory subsystems and platforms, 70% + 30%, and much more. :)

Clarification #2

As shown in the Clarification of the 13th of April 2023, the function of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) is characterized more as the declaration and collection function similar to a database than the organization function similar to the Dewey Decimal System.
Accordingly, the function of ontologies is characterized even more the function similar to a database than APIs.

Clarification #3

We quote a report about regulations in the fields of HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (SB) for Trusted Artificial Intelligence (TAI) or Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), and validated and verified technologies, goods, and services of these fields: "[...]
The White House's Blueprint for an [Artificial Intelligence] A.I. Bill of Rights is a more interesting proposal [...]. But where the European Commission's approach is much too tailored, the White House blueprint may well be too broad. No A.I. system today comes close to adhering to the framework, and it's not clear that any of them could.
"Automated systems should provide explanations that are technically valid, meaningful and useful to you and to any operators or others who need to understand the system, and calibrated to the level of risk based on the context," the blueprint says. Love it. But every expert I talk to says basically there same thing: We have made no progress on interpretability, and while there is certainly a chance we will, it is only a chance. For now, we have no idea what is happening inside these prediction systems. Force them to provide an explanation, and the one they give is itself a prediction of what we want to hear - it's turtles all the way down.
The blueprint also says that "automated systems should be developed with consultation from diverse communities, stakeholders, and domain experts to identify concerns, risks and potential impacts of the system." [...]
It goes on to insist that "systems should undergo predeployment testing, risk identification and mitigation, and ongoing monitoring that demonstrate they are safe and effective based on their intended use." [...]
Perhaps the most interesting of the blueprint's proposals is that "you should be able to opt out from automated systems in favor of a human alternative, where appropriate." In that sentence, the devil lurks in the definition of "appropriate." But the underlying principle is worth considering. Should there be an opt-out from A.I. systems? Which ones? When is an opt-out clause a genuine choice, and at what point does it become merely an invitation to recede from society altogether, like saying you can choose not to use the internet or vehicular transport or banking services if you so choose."

Comment
First of all, we have to give the information that the report quoted above is from one of those already convicted, only lying press creatures of the New York Trolls (NYT).

Furthermore, we note that both, the

are based on our publications about our Ontologic System (OS) and therefore already constitute infringements of our copyright and other rights, because the work of art included in the oeuvre of C.S. and the performance of our corporation are not referenced.

Just see the clarifications and notes

The demand for

of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically the works of art created by C.S. (see for example the note No chance to expropriate or democratize our OS of the 2nd of April 2023 once again).
We already had this discussion in relation to various subject matters in the last past and in this regard we always explained and recall now once again that our OS has specific foundations and basic properties to solve exactly the problems, which include

and are now

as one can easily see on for example the websites of our OS variants OntoLix and OntoLinux, and as we also already noted, discussed, explained, and clarified on this website of OntomaX, and therefore even adheres to the framework of the U.S.American administration, which is based on said publications of us (see above).
If at all, consultation and monitoring would only be done in collaboration with our SOPR and the result of a consultation and monitoring would only be a guideline or recommendation to our SOPR.
Eventually, we do already have a crystal clear legal framework.

The ability to opt out from automated systems is a no-brainer and can be added to the Consent Management System (CMS) of our SOPR, which is also used for handling private raw signals and data, Personally Identifiable Information (PII), etc., and in relation to for example mobility, online advertisement, etc..

In this context, we also simply repeat once again that exactly due to these problems our Evoos has become our OS with its basic properties and Ontologic System Components (OSC), including

In this relation, we would also recall the Trust Management System (TMS) and Trust as a Service (TaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (TaaSx) of our SOPR.

We also explained that our O# is an

Last but not least, one can see

• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• rights and properties of other entities, who will not be locked in multiple proprietary ecosystems anymore,
• neutrality, fairness, interoperability, transparency, integrity, security, safety, etc., and
• freedom of choice, innovation, and competition,

• restore a rule-based law and order environment and
• enable a means of checks and balances of the powers of other entities and us, but not establish and provide a legally impossible level playing field,

and

pro bono publico==for the public good in general and the users in particular.

By the way:

11:56 UTC+2
Hewlett Packard Enterprise still in LaLaLand

We simply say

or simply original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled

By the way:

11:56 UTC+2
Siemens still in LaLaLand

We simply say

or simply original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled

A lot of Siemens is not allowed:

We will not list all of the technologies, goods, and services of Siemens, which are not allowed. But we are still investigating its

• Xcelerator as a Service, and
• Simcenter SCAPTOR for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) data collection, Autonomous Vehicle (AV) performance engineering, and multi-sensor autonomous driving development,

because Siemens has taken the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. to protect and expand its core businesses, which constitutes multiple infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

Related as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx), including

have already been restricted regarding the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction, or prohibited, and also added to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies (see for example the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

By the way:

13:25 and 14:04 UTC+2
All or nothing at all.

A partnership can only work, if all participating entities are commited to it. Obviously, the industries are still in LaLaLand, which means they have rejected the various Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) proposals for an out-of-court agreement submitted and discussed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) on this website of OntomaX.

But there is no doubt that the legal situation must be and will be resolved, and in the course of this there must and will be contracts, indemnities, payments of damage compensations, restorations, reimbursements, etc. of significant scope and magnitude. Is not it? Of course, it is to

In this context, we also discussed the insolvency and already recommended

• Alphabet (Google), Amazon, etc. (classic insolvency due to inability to pay damages in time),
• Microsoft, Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, Nvidia, etc. (classic insolvency due to lawsuits of investors),
• T-Mobile US, Volkswagen Group of America, Airbus Group, Siemens USA, etc. (classic competition due to legal decisions and actions of us).

Please note that no other entity than us and potentially governments will be in the position of such a takeover due to the huge debt loads.

18.April.2023

12:50 and 15:08 UTC+2
Elon Musk and Co. still in LaLaLand

We already got that fraud scheme with Tesla Motors and Space Exploration Technologies, then with OpenAI and cryptocurrencies, and now with truth and trust.
What comes next? The takeover of TruthSocial? An adpation as TruthPilot™ for Electric Vehicles (EVs) and other things? If it would not be so sad and silly, then we could even be Rolling On Floor Laughing (ROFL) about that totally ridiculous attempt.

But with his latest scam he is mimicking, infringing the rights and properties, damaging the goals, and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation in such an obvious way that taking successfully legal actions has become a formal procedure respectively finger excercise.
In fact, C.S. already has as expression of idea the fields of philosophy (e.g. ontology), logics, mathematics, physics (e.g. astronomy or astrophysics), biology, informatics, computer sciences, bionics (HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (SB)) (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), including Fuzzy Logic (FL), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), and Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Autonomic Computing (AC), Robotic Computing (RC), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Emotional Intelligence (EI), or Emotive Computing (EmoC) and Affective Computing (AffC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.), the universe, and much more in relation to find and establish truth and trust, create a believe system and a Theory of Everything (ToE)/Universal Theory (see the webpage of Caliber/Calibre). Therefore, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will give no allowance and license for any distortion or other modification of parts, adaption or preparation of derivative works, or even production of blutant plagiarisms and fakes of the work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
Hasta la vista, ponzi.

The same holds for those plagiarisms called like ChaosBot, as well as AutoBot™, and definitely AgentBot. They will not last long in contrast to the legal actions against supporters of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).

As we said before, after script kiddies came crypto kiddies and now come AI kiddies.

13:41 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

For sure, we will enforce the control over our Ontoscope on Wheels, also wrongly called smartcar, Electric Vehicle (EV), and New Energy™ automobile, and order the markets worldwide by various means and activities already prepared.
But we will not do it for other companies, specifically those, that refuse to comply with the

19:54 UTC+2
AI crap becoming even bigger disaster than crypto crap

We looked at our foundational technologies, including our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also creative and generativ Bionics, goods, and services, including our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and concluded once again that the

are correct.

Read the

• Quality management (QM) and
• Product Lifecycle Management (PLM),

• Success story continues and no end in sight of the 17th of May 2022 and
• We always said our OS is revolutionary and magic of the 22nd of March 2023,

• term rewriting and
• graph rewriting systems/(imperative) graph rewrite rules/graph grammars",

Now, we also do know what Bill Gates has truly seen, or better said understood in 2016, because the company OpenAI was founded only in December 2015 disguised as a fake Non-Profit Organization (NPO) and its responsible entities had no clue what to steal from us in detail at that time. Later the members of OpenAI publicated a document, which is a partial plagiarism and copies an essential part of our Ontologic Core (OntoCore or OC) component based on the validated and verified L4 microkernel and our ON, OW, and OV (see the Investigations::Multimedia, and AI and KM of the {hyperlink missing}).

Here, for more than 20 years, there has been nothing but lying, cheating, scamming, and stealing.
We do not think that any entity is truly envious on California, Massachusetts, or certain other states of the U.S.America.

We already announced to act against all the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
We would also like to highly recommend to all copyright collectives, also known as a copyright society, copyright collecting agency, licensing agency, copyright collecting society, or collective management organization, that they should sue against any infringement, because

• confuse the public about the true identity of a creator or origin of a work of art, and
• interfere with and siphon off a source of income of an artist in an unfair way

is also prohibited.

We also call on the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta (Facebook), Alibaba, Baidu, and Co. to take down all illegal software, specifically illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), from the legal and illegal platforms, or the damages and other counter actions will become even more expensive and economically unsustainable.
In fact, Microsoft is short before becoming an insolvent takeover candidate of class 1 (not able to finance the payment of damage compensations) (see also the note All or nothing at all. of the 16th of April 2023).

19.April.2023

10:54 UTC+2
SOPR decided FOSS transition ends in 2023

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided that the deadline for the transition of any illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) to a legal thing by the announced reimplementation regulation ends in 2023, which means no reimplementation of FOSS to our Ontologic System (OS) through others or us payed by us will be accepted anymore after the end of 2023.
The offer was merely meant as part of the proposed

We highly recommend to get out of any illegal FOSS thing or face total ban in 2024.

FOSS projects and platforms, that are still providing commercial technologies, goods, and services on the basis of any illegal FOSS after 2023, will face expensive measures by our SOPR.

Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs), that are still promoting any illegal FOSS for whatsoever, or supporting or using it for any action after the end of 2023, will face blacklisting and being blocked from the services of our SOPR, including the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with the subsystems and platforms.

All entities concerned got more than 2 years to adapt to a truly legal environment.

18:12 UTC+2
Horizon Robotics has to stop copyright infringement immediately

... Ontologic roBot™ (OntoBot™ or OB), Autobrain™, Ontoscope on Wheels™ variants as part of our Automobile 2.0™ or Auto 2.0™ revolution already show, and will become even more obvious and stoppable at the courts worldwide with the illegal integration with what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) ...

By the way:

18:16 UTC+2
Nio + ca. 300 Chinese Os builders still in LaLaLand

2 giant hurdles have to be overcome by all Chinese manufacturers of Ontoscope™ (Os) variants: The

• performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System©®™ and created by C.S. by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR),
• creation and publication of Ontologic Applications™ and Ontologic Services™ (OAOS™) on the exclusvie OAOS platform of our SOPR, and
• operation and utilization of Ontoscope Components (OsC),

(see also the message Ontonics Further steps of the 18th of April 2023 (yesterday)) and also

• national sovereignty, national security, and national safety,
• cyber sovereignty, cybersecurity, and cybersafety, and
• signals and data sovereignty, protection (privacy), security, integrity, and governance

by other countries, unions of states, and economic zones.

The same holds for all other companies in the field of technologies (e.g. HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW), systems, platforms, etc.), goods (e.g. applications, devices, vehicles, robots, etc.), and services based on the original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., if they want to get access to markets outside the P.R.China.
We also already discussed our access to the Chinese market in the course of win-win and so on.

And of course we will get our damage compensations, licenses, and so on in one way or another and even for everything stolen in the past by companies not existing anymore.

We will discuss all details with the government of the P.R.China and are highly confident to find the right way for establishing and guaranteeing harmony, continuity, stability, and prosperity together. :)

Please remember that the

• creation and publication of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and
• operation and utilization of Ontoscope Components (OsC),

and

are licensed independently as 2 different positions.

20.April.2023

09:01 and 24:26 UTC+2
Snap still in LaLaLand

With the support of an illegal partial plagiarism of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS) and , the company Snap has used up its not so large contingent of trustworthiness and shown no goodwill and commitment, and will not be able to continue with muddling through.

The company should better find a source of income, because the performance and reproduction of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not for free.

09:19 UTC+2
SOPR already begun with Bionics blacklist

As our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has done before with the blacklist in relation to illegal vehicle manufacturers and cryptotulips, it has also already begun with the new blacklist in relation to the fields of Bionics.

21.April.2023

00:47, 11:31, and 13:19 UTC+2
Bionics gatecrash cost illegal Cloud

The stealing of our

• Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone,
• Apple iPhone, iPad, etc.,
• Amazon Alexa Smartspeaker,
• etc.,

• Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF),
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) (P2P VM),
• Decentralized Web (DWeb), Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and Decentralized Commerce (D-Commerce), and also Web 3 or Web3,
• Federated Universe (Fediverse),
• Metaverse,
• Free and Open Source Software (FOSS),
• etc.,

• Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs),
• crytpo markets, crypto platforms, crypto wallets,
• crypto assets, crypto currencies, crypto currency Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs),
• transactions from virtual assets into real assets,
• etc.,

the conduction of certain gatecrashes, and the continuing fraud in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and futher Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have confirmed the reduction of the proposed modifications of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) again and again.
Especially the gatecrash in the field of Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CAS, AC, etc.) and the rejection of a joint action in relation to large foundational models, eventually cost the part of our OS, which is also wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) (services) platforms, etc.. And this is not the end of the measures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) to protect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Own fault.

See also for eample the note SOPR revising ToS regarding sovereignty and security of the 29th of March 2023

By the way:

01:55, 08:55, an 14:23 UTC+2
SOPR going after imitating C.S.

We were reminded by a deputy music editor of a very well known U.S.American media company, which features entertainment news, reviews, box office results, cover stories, videos, photo galleries and features, etc., that we were ripped off respectively C.S. has been imitated in the sense of the artist in person and the feel expressed with an work of art (compare with the precedent of the so-called Blurred Lines case, which is about the plagiarism of the the feel of a Marvin Gaye song), because our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) are also (interpreted, presented, and discussed as) cybernetic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, self-augmentation, and self-extension of C.S., including our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) and our generative and creative Bionics, which has been stolen with ChatGPT by OpenAI, Microsoft, Bard by Alphabet (Google), and similar parts of our Evoos and our OS by many other plagiarists.

We will follow the legal actions of the worldwide music industry and the rulings of the worldwide courts, and use them as further precedents for our legal actions, which follow the first legal actions being prepared by us now.

In this sense, La La La, we do know that they can here and see us, and it is only the beginning. Is not it?

11:40 UTC+2
SOPR confirmed CPS, I 4.0 and 5.0, and IIoT claims once again

We looked another time at the fields of Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), Industry of Things or Inudstry 4.0 and 5.0, and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and compared our analysis with scientific works and marketing materials of other companies.
In this way, we were able to

• Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot)
  • is not Distributed System (DS) and also
  • lacks the orchestration between networked computational resources and physical systems,

  and

• Sensor Net (SN)
  • is not bidirectional system between reality (physical process layer) and virtuality (... process layer), and
  • is not a cybernetic system with a feedback loop, also called feedback system,

  and therefore does not flip our related claims,

and

In this relation, it is not really important anymore where the white, yellow, or red line truly runs along, because we added so much more to the prior art, that the required technologies, goods, and services, and also the state of the art is our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) anyway. The calculation of the damage compensations and royalties, and other legal matter are also not affected.

13:19 UTC+2
Japanese city has to stop copyright infringement immediately

Or it will become very expensive for many Japanese entities if they use illegal plagiarisms of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and futher Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. in whole or in part, because we already balanced them accordingly.

22.April.2023

10:40 UTC+2
SOPR going strong to 100 legal violations

We have formulated the next infringement of general rights and the next infringement of individual rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
This increased the number to (around) 29 law violations, but we know from experience that a multiplication factor of 3 is appropriated, when lawyers and prosecutors take on the cases.

12:58 and 15:11 UTC+2
SOPR reminds 5G NG, 5.1G, or 5.2G, and 6G © C.S.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would like to give the reminder to all entities concerned that the (foundation of the) so-called

• 5th Generation standard for wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks of the Next Generation (5G NG) respectively 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems of the Next Generation (5G NG), 5.1G (if one begins counting with 5.0), or 5.2G, and
• 6th Generation standard for wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks (6G) and satellite-based networks respectively 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G),

• Superstructure, and
• common backbone, core network, or fabric

of the infrastructures of our SOPR.

Therefore, there

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

See also the notes

and note that we

• keeps all regulations regarding federal laws, joint ventures, public tenders, etc. effective and intact, and
• is much better by far, for example by being agnostic of turf wars, conspiracies, cliques, and illegal monopolies :),

By the way:

23.April.2023

13:37 UTC+2
SOPR reminds use of OS not for legal violations

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has to give the reminder that the use of the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S, specfically the original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled

is prohibited for conducting legal violations, for sure.

In this relation, we would like to give the information that we are not a member of the so-called "Human Artistry Campaign, which is a recording industry coalition to advocate [...] for exactly these kinds of cases for what they call human created art [...] they call for copyright law to be factored in here". But we are supporting it and are considering the membership due to the imitation of C.S. by generative and creative Bionic technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications, devices, vehicles, robots, etc.), and services (see also the note SOPR going after imitating C.S. of the 21st of April 2023).

But we will also protect our rights and properties against any industry, specifically if they agree to agreements and contracts, which infringe our rights and properties.

Our oversmart entrepreneurs, managers, and other entities in Silicon Valley, on Silicon Alley, and at other locations have not thought through the personal, social, societal, cultural, technological, legal, and economical implications of said original and unique AWs and further IPs solely created, designed, and owned by C.S. and even being C.S. (e.g. cybernetic self-portrait, self-augmentation, and self-extension, and also self-reflection also called onton and wrongly called digital twin), and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

14:00 UTC+2
Clarification

The works of art, which

prove the

and eventually show that we are the original once again.

Also note, that C.S. already saw all these problems around 20 years ago, and decided to make the whole thing an original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use work of art, so that we now have a single central authority with our Hightech Office Ontonics and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and have no legal disput at all, because it is already crystal clear since the years 1999 and 2006, who has created it, who holds the rights and properties for it, and who is in charge of it, and who has not, who does not, and who is not. :)

25.April.2023

17:21 UTC+2
SOPR studied Epic Games vs. Apple No. 21-16506

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We quote the following document, which is about the legal case Epic Games vs. Apple: "United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit
Epic Games, Inc., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant,
v.
Apple, Inc., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
No. 21-16506
[...]
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2022
San Francisco, California
Filed April 24, 2023
[...]

Summary
Antitrust
The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games, Inc., on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc.; in favor of Epic on its claim under California's Unfair Competition Law; against Epic on Apple's claim for breach of contract; and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees. The panel affirmed except for the district court's ruling respecting attorney fees, where it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel explained that, when Apple opened the iPhone to third-party app developers, it created a "walled garden," rather than an open ecosystem in which developers and users could transact freely without mediation from Apple. Epic alleged that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple's App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple's in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users. These restrictions were imposed under the Developer Program Licensing Agreement ("DPLA"), which developers were required to sign in order to distribute apps to iOS users. The district court rejected Epic's Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 claims challenging the first and second restrictions, principally on the factual grounds that Epic failed to propose viable less restrictive alternatives to Apple's restrictions. The district court concluded that the third restriction was unfair pursuant to the California UCL and enjoined Apple from enforcing it against any developer. The district court held that Epic breached its contract with Apple but was not obligated to pay Apple's attorney fees.
On Epic's appeal, the panel affirmed the district court's denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic's illegality defense to Apple's breach of contract counter-claim. The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market and in holding that a non-negotiated contract of adhesion, such as the DPLA, falls outside the scope of Sherman Act § 1, but those errors were harmless. The panel held that, independent of the district court's errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS's walled-garden ecosystem.
[...]"

Comment
We note that a so-called walled garden and an innocent monopoly are not the problems at all.

We also would like to know how the relevant antitrust market could be defined correctly (in this case) for Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 claims.

Also, we do not use the Google Playstore app store at all, but viable less restrictive alternatives to Alphabet (Google)'s restrictions. So where is the problem with Apple iOS and App Store in relation to the first restriction?
Furthermore, we think it is a contradiction to say that Epic failed to propose viable less restrictive alternatives to Apple's in-app purchase and payment restriction and simultaneously allow ... "Monday's ruling upholds an injunction that, if allowed to take effect, would prevent Apple from intervening when developers include "buttons, external links or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms" apart from Apple's own channels."
These are viable less restrictive alternatives to Apple's restrictions, obviously, and they are even the mechanisms, which would be implemented, if Apple would have to drop its restrictions. What an utter nonsense.

Last but not least, according to a report "Apple grounds its app store restrictions in security and privacy rationales that differentiate the company from other mobile operating system makers such as Google, the court said [...]".
"Apple's restrictions create a heterogenous market for app-transaction platforms which, as a result, increases interbrand competition [between the partial Ontologic System (OS) variants iOS, Android, and Windows] - the primary goal of antitrust law."
Honestly, we are unsure how to interpret and understand this argument from the social, legal, technological, and economical points of view, because if such an argument about grounding in security and privacy is enough to show that it is not an illegal walled garden, then we wonder what is anti-competitive at all.
But it brings us back to the 2 first sentences of this comment.

18:56 UTC+2
P27 and EPI SEPA apps are not OntoPay

*** Work in progress - mode just started, maybe some wrong parts ***

European Payments Initiative (EPI)
Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA)

Do we have here the start of the next test balloon of the European Commission (EC) and its cliques and lobbyists?

The first attempt was made with the establishment of the Euro Alliance of Payment Schemes (EAPS) on the 7th of November 2007 failed and was dissolved in April 2012 due to "the perceived absence of a viable business model", absence of a clear source of income for the issuing banks.

The second attempt was with first ideas made in 2019 and with the establishment of the European Payments Initiative (EPI) in July 2020.

Another attempt was made with the establishment of the European Mobile Payment Systems Association on the 3rd of September 2019.

Everything else is our original and unique Ontologic System and Ontoscope (Os) with

Please note that in most legal cases only 1 original and unique property or feature is sufficient evidence to show the causal link with our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os).

The foundation for real-time transaction and instant payment is already part of our

Evoos also includes Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) (see plagiarisms Askemos and Ethereum) and fault tolerance.

Through the Ontologic File System (OntoFS or OFS) component with crypto and Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durab- ility (ACID) transactional properties and logging we also have the functionality of a digital wallet in our OS, which can even be based on the smart contract transaction protocol, blockchain technique, and our DLT.
{correct?} Digital wallet came only around 2010 to 2011.

No government, authority, company, association, and other entity should fall prey to any illusions.
In fact,

• payment without a guaranteed transfer time (faster payment), for example Faster Payments Service (FPS) for near real-time transactions between banks (interbank) and building societies transfer for Internet and telephone banking, and also ATM switching platform (2005 and 2008), and
• within a specified period of time (real-time payment) (beyond inter-banking) and introduced around 2008 to 2010, for example SEPA instant credit transfer (SCT Inst) scheme (ca. 2014) and pan-European instant payment systems RT1 based on SCT Inst (November 2017) and Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer (TARGET) Instant Payment Settlement (TIPS) (November 2018),

specifically transaction for ordinary banking customers / end users and mobile instant payment (e.g. Swish Sweden (2012) and MobilePay Denmark (2013), which are {what? digital wallets} and had not digital wallet), and

are part of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay) (5th of July 2017) "with our payment service OntoPay that is applied on our Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded Systems (NES), as well as Agent-Based Systems (ABSs) [...]" (December 2017) of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), and therefore banks and other participants and interested entities must use the related subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
"The payment procedure is therefore very simple and also much faster than for example a Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) transfer, which has already rapidly accelerated payment transactions in the 36 member states of the SEPA payment-integration initiative." (14th of July 2021)
Or said with other words, everything beyond a pan-European card scheme within the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), SEPA-centric alternatives for debit card payment systems and networks, QR code, and online banking as of October 2006 is part of our OS and its foundations for our OPS.

That the members of the EPI begin with an application for mobile-to-mobile (e.g. Os2Os) payments respectively transactions between mobile digital wallets and not with the common business processes, Point of Sale (POS) or Point of Purchase (POP), Electronic Commerce (EC), transfer of money between bank accounts, etc. is curious somehow.
But will not change the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and therefore we would like to recommend to use our subsystems and platforms, and functionalities of SEPA and EPI, and integration of them, if required, for the creation and publication of truly legal Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
Interfaces are expensive, if implemented.

We gave all banks many years to come up with a truly working solution. But only after we acted, they followed and now want to take over the control, as proven by the developments and dates of the plagiarisms.

At least one of the participating cooperative banks is blacklisted due to its handling of illegal cryptocurrencies, etc. and we do not intent to let this become another never ending story.

Copying and stealing is not competition.

26.April.2023

00:26 and 08:44 UTC+2
Linux Foundation still in LaLaLand

None of the initiatives of the Linux Foundation, which infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, will get the legally required allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically certain parts of our work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..

This also includes the

We consider such activities as copyright infringements and conspiracies of the participating entities and we are very sure that those collectively conducted gatecrashes and blackmailings do lead to nowhere, as already proven with our distributed, generative and creative Bionics, and other technologies, goods, and services, but will only result in high costs for all parties involved.
Do not expect very lenient or highly pleased judges.

We are unable to see that Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is procompetitive, because if everbody gives away for free, then we have no competition and no economy at all and most potentially also no creation and no innovation.
This becomes extremely interesting by the fact that they do it to protect their core businesses and illegal monopolies, an as part of their abuse of market power.

We can also see that illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is even misused for geopolitics, cliquism activities, and just ordinary frauds and serious criminal actions.

We also have the opinion that the Linux Foundation Europe, other European entities, and other entities are misunderstanding the

In fact, we are walking a fine line in developing a legal framework, which

but eventually we all have to accept. And there is absolutely no place for any illegal activities.
The same holds for the U.S.America and other countries.

See also the notes

By the way:

09:39 UTC+2
SOPR considering ban of Os for VW, DT, etc.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering a ban of our Ontoscope (Os) with or without wheels, wings, and whatsoever for the partial State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) Volkswagen (VW), including Volkswagen Group of America and Volkswagen Group China, Deutsche Telekom (DT), including T-Mobile US, Orange (formerly France Télécom), Airbus, including Airbus Group, and other companies, if they do not stop their fraudulent and even serious criminal activities immediately, such as the support and conduction of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and illegal business activities.

11:17 UTC+2
Short gambling with Ms and Google stocks

For sure, traders took the chance to make a short gambling and generate a quick profit by trading stocks of the companies Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) in the last hours. But they also know what is coming in the next future, because a lot will be corrected in relation to the

In fact, only we hold the rights and properties for all the interesting things, but not any other entity, including Microsoft and Alphabet (Google), and the new buzz word is space and the next big thing is already our Space as part of our Ontoverse (Ov).

In addition, the legal case Epic Games vs. Apple confirmed all of our points of view, claims, and decisions in relation to our legal, because innocent monopoly and right to exclusively exploit what is wrongly called Android, iOS, Windows, app store, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog, metaverse, crypto, 6G, foundation model, generative AI, smartphone, iPhone, smartcar, etc., etc., etc..
It has become a matter of correct formal formulation, so that judges only need to check off our claims one after the other.

And the lying press can stop its fraudulent and even serious criminal activities to mislead the public, because we are recognized worldwide by so many persons, companies, and other entities already since many years. What a freak show, which only shows that something is profoundly wrong with democracy and free press.

11:58 and 14:27 UTC+2
17% is dead

Somehow, we have the impression that certain entities would like to stick to the AoA and the ToS with the LM and MCM of our SOPR as of the end of December 2022. But these are dead and gone.

But if we would talk about the outdated legal matter at all, then only if

• Marketplace for Everything (MfE) for
  • public signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms, and open signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms sources respectively publicly available signal streams and datasets, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms, and openly available signal streams and datasets, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms, and also all other items common to all members of the public, and
  • private raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models, and algorithms,
• complete
  • restoration of rights, integrities, and reputations,
  • restitution of properties, and
  • restoration of momenta, as well as follow-up opportunities,
• upfront payment of 10% of estimated triple damage compensations,
• infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including
  • subsystems and platforms,
  • interoperability,
  • common ontologies and other foundational models,
• execution of competition law in a truly decisive way,
• and so on,

But with said horizontal separation we are already close to the usual ToS with LM as of January 2023 anyway.

We are preparing the first injunctions in the F.R.Germany and then we will decide which legal actions come next.

Welcome to the 21st Century.
Welcome to the New Reality (NR).
Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).
Welcome to the OntoLand (OL).
Welcome to the New World Order (NWO).
Welcome back to the reality.

"Do you have considered that maybe I set you up?", [Tom Sanders to Meredith Johnson, Disclosure, 1994] :D

17:35 UTC+2
Style of Speed Further steps

We are pleased to announce that our conversion kits of the Green Greta™ series and related conversion services for Pure Electric™ New Energy™ airliners are soon available and can already be ordered for all aircrafts in planning, manufacturing, and operating.

In addition to no climate-damaging emissions, our worlds first Purely Electric™ conversion technologies should even result in a

Moreover, with our original and unique Cyber-Physical Grid System (CPGS) based on our Ontologic Net™ of Things (ONoT) and provided by our business unit Electric Power (EP) a considerable cost reduction and fast Return of Investment (RoI) should be possible.

FIFO resp. FCFS order. Be quick, because our airline Greta Air™ and our other airlines and transport business units are already in.

27.April.2023

10:44 UTC+2
Transition DC to MC ended with OS, OC, Os in Oct 2006

Desktop Computing (DC)
Mobile Computing (MC)
Ontologic System (OS)
Ontologic Computing (OC)
Ontoscope (Os)
October (Oct)

We would like to give the reminder that

Also recall once again that our Evoos

• Cybernetics,
• Bionics, including HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CV, CA, CAS, MAS, AC, etc.), Associative Memory (AM), Tuple Space (TS), etc., and
• Robotics, including Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot),
• operating system (os), including Distributed operating system (Dos), Robotic operating system (Ros), Embedded System operating system (ESos), Real-Time operating system (RTos), etc.,
• and so on,

and

• Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), specifically operating system-level virtualization, microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA), service management and orchestration, etc.,
• Resource-Oriented technologies (ROx),
• Software-Defined Networking (SDN),
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) (P2P VM),
• fault tolerance and other subfields of resilience,
• and so on.

Therefore, we were not in a transition from or transformation of Desktop Computing (DC) to Mobile Computing (MC), but we are still in the process of the realization of Ontologic Computing (OC), including the integration of DC and MC as well as HB and SB, and Space and Time Computing and Networking (STCN), obviously, doubtlessly, and definitely.

22:00 UTC+2
SOPR considering ban of OS for CloudSPs

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering a ban of our Ontologic System (OS) for the so-called and wrongly called Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) until they

Our SOPR also would like to recall that it is legally prohibited to mimick C.S. or our corporation, specifically to

to duplicate the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
Yes, this restriction is absolutely legal as is the case of our innocent monopoly, because the copyright law and the competition law do support and allow this. :)

We would like to recall once again that companies have to focus on their competences and businesses, but not only stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and our corporation, specifically our SOPR. What our SOPR does is exclusive and neither Microsoft or Alphabet (Google), nor any other entity will be in control in our Ontoverse (Ov).

22:05 and 22:49 UTC+2
SOPR considering ban of OS for generative and creative Bionics

We learned from the utilization by another company, that the plagiarism clalled ChatGPT of the serious criminal company OpenAI (conspiring with Microsoft, Snap, Salesforce, etc.) has textual (write and compose music), visual (Computer Vision (CV)), acoustical (Computer Audition (CA), hear music), and therefore multimodality, and also conversational functionalities and abilities, and therefore is not just only an AI language model, which is also a plagiarism anyway.
The whole gang has been busted again and again and again.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering a ban of our Ontologic System (OS) for what is called generative and creative Bionics by us and also wrongly called generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) by others until they have stopped the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and signed all legal documents, including the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) contract of our SOPR, which demands the use of the backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also the subsystems and platforms, as well as the foundational models of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

Our SOPR also would like to recall that it is legally prohibited to mimick C.S. or our corporation, specifically to

to duplicate the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
Yes, this restriction is absolutely legal as is the case of our innocent monopoly, because the copyright law and the competition law do support and allow this. :)

We would like to recall once again that companies have to focus on their competences and businesses, but not only stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and our corporation, specifically our SOPR. What our SOPR does is exclusive and neither Microsoft or Alphabet (Google), nor any other entity will be in control in our Ontoverse (Ov).

11:40, 13:30, and 22:24 UTC+2
Digital wallet common to all SOPR members

We are finalizing the note about P27 and EPI SEPA apps are not OntoPay of the 25th of April 2023, specifically in relation to the fields of

The preliminary results are based on the analysis of subjects in an online encyclopedia and cited documents.

The digital wallet existed already in the 1990s in web browsers for Electronic Commerce (EC). "The [wallet] service's original name was also originally used for a feature included in [web browsers,] that allowed users to store credit card information to use with a limited number of supported sites."
Also, digital wallets were used with electronic cash (e-cash). But this is not digitial money, but given from an individual communication service provider to pay for special serivces of it.
Due to the deficits of e-cash, "the digital wallet has evolved into a service that provides internet users with a convenient way to store and use online shopping information".

"In 1997, Coca-Cola offered buying from vending machines using mobile payments.[15]"
"Mobile payments began adoption in Japan in the 2000s and later all over the world in different ways.[2][3] The first patent exclusively defined "Mobile Payment System" was filed in [December] 2000.[4]"
"Wireless network operator [...] now also offers the [(travel)] ticket service in its [proprietary] cell phone portal [...]. [...] The cell phone ticket can be paid for either by direct debit, in cash at the service centers of the transport companies, or via the Mobile Wallet electronic purse. The latter is a service from [a mobile Telecommunication Service Provider (TSP)], that enables the purchase of an [Short Message Service (]SMS[)] ticket even without prior registration with the [ticket] service." (2004)
"In November 2007 a system based on [Near-Field Communication (]NFC[) technology] and [Radio-Frequency IDentification (]RFID[)] was implemented in Bulgaria, making it the third country in [the] European [U]nion [(EU)] transforming the mobile phone from a communication device into an electronic terminal. [2] [3]"

But mobile payment in conjunction with a mobile digital wallet was only introduced around 2009. "The subscriber deposits money into a wallet using a cash in transaction and go withdraw doing a cash out transaction. Typically the money can then be sent directly to another wallet using a Person to Person command and the only identifier needed is the mobile phone number of the beneficiary."
This got momentum around 2010 to April 2011 by an alliance of mobile telcos / carriers / mobile network providers."The term "digital wallet" is also increasingly being used to describe mobile phones, especially smartphones, that store an individual's credentials and utilize wireless technologies such as near field communication (NFC) to carry out financial transactions. [1][2][3][4]"
But actual illegal variants of our Ontoscope reproduced by others at that time were not capable for doing it securely.

Instant payment was only done by banks and some other financial institutes (e.g. building societies). Only around 2018(?) it became available for online banking respectively ordinary users and only around ... it also became available for mobile banking.

We noticed several deficits with applications and services, including mobile payment services and digital wallet applications or services.
In addition, we saw the lack of real-time properties in general and smart contract and blockchain utilizations in particular. Therefore, our OS with its basic properties, including Distributed operating system (Dos) and Real-Time operating system (RTos) (see the L4 microkernel based operating system The Dresden Real-Time Operating System (DROPS)), Internet of Things (IoT) and RFID, and Ontologic File System (OntoFS) component provides the synthesis of all basic functionalities integrated by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).!-- (see the L4 ... ) added on the 27th of April 2023 -->

Furthermore, we

• feature that "every user get an id[entity], that starts with onto#)" respectively the electronic Passport (ePass) (April 2008) and
• Holomer (August 2007) respectively electronic Patient record (ePa), Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR), or digital patient record.

Missing is the final consideration about instant payment, and the overall decsion. But the later should already be obvious: ID, smart contract, and blockchain are us, while digital wallet, etc. is already included in our OS as well anyway.

A digital wallet is common to all members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and therefore the related susbystem and platform belongs to the infrastructures of our SOPR.

We also recall that our OS with its OntoFS component already

In addition, we already have the financial services of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), including

All illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) (e.g. Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android, Wear OS, Harmony, DuerOS, etc., Linux Foundation OWF, and so on) came years too late, though it has become obvious in the last decade that FOSS has become a giant fraud.

We would like to recall once again that companies have to focus on their competences and businesses and not on our corporation and businesses, specifically not on stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and not on mimiking our SOPR. What our SOPR does is exclusive and neither Microsoft and Alphabet (Google), nor any other entity will be in control in our Ontoverse (Ov).

28.April.2023

10:41 and 23:45 UTC+2
ISO 20022 and SCT Inst based on OS

Internationalen Organisation für Normung (ISO)
Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) instant credit transfer (SCT Inst)
Ontologic System (OS)

We also noted that the SEPA instant credit transfer (SCT Inst) scheme is based on the UNIversal Financial Industry (UNIFI) message scheme standard (ISO 20022), which is based on the eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and includes the Part 1: Metadata, which again is stored in Unified Modeling Language (UML) models / includes UML metadata models and an overall ISO 20022 metamodel of all these single models, which again is used as a domain model respectively ontology (see the section Finance of the webpage Ontologics.info) and as part of the Model-Based Architecture (MBA) approach respectively like our Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigm, somehow.
Interestingly, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is the Registration Authority for ISO 20022.

Also note that the fields of

all provide an architecture, which has some kind of message-based Inter-Process Communication (IPC) as essential functionality. MAS even added ontology-based messaging between agents.
Furthermore, our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) already integrates

and also created this foundational part of the fields of mSOA and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) in a Software Engineering (SE) environment (design patterns) and our OS already integrates

and also created the Ontologic-Oriented (OO 3) respectively ontological paradigm, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT){?} and Industry 4.0 and 5.0, and all the rest.

Honestly, this is a little too much, specifically when we add the digital wallet, because we have the impression or even the evidence that our OS has been taken as source of inspiration and as blueprint for digital wallets, payment systems, and so on.

And we also note that C.S. created the Ontoscope (Os), which is also wrongly called Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Android Smarttablet, Android Smartwatch, Android TV, etc., Google Pixel, Samsung Galaxy, Samsung Tab, Gear smartwatch, Apple iPhone, Apple iPad, Apple Watch, smartTV, smartcar, and so on, and according to the copyright law and competiton law being effective and confirmed again and again (see for example Epic Games vs. Apple and New York et al. vs. Meta (Facebook)), we are allowed to exploit the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., as well as our other innocent monopolies.

The issue with the ISO 20022 standard reminds us of another scandal with the standardization of another part of our original and unique, personal and copyrighted work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., which is wrongly called Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Industry 4.0, and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT).

12:07 UTC+2
SOPR studied New York et al. vs. Meta (Facebook)

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We quote a report, which is about the legal case New York et al. vs. Meta (Facebook) and was publicated on the 27th of April 2023 (yesterday): "A group of states that sued to break up Facebook-parent Meta in 2020 were years too late to file their challenge and failed to make a persuasive case that the company's data policies harmed competition, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a sweeping victory for the tech giant.
In siding with Meta, the decision by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld a lower-court decision tossing out the suit initially filed by New York and dozens of other states.
The decision is a blow to regulators who have cited Meta as a prime example of the way tech giants have allegedly abused their dominance. And it casts a shadow over a parallel antitrust case against Meta that was brought by the Federal Trade Commission at around the same time.
The states' original complaint had sought to unwind Meta's past acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, accusing the company of a "buy-or-bury" approach that violated antitrust laws.
In 2021, a federal judge dismissed the complaint, saying that the lawsuit came long after the acquisitions had been completed in 2012 and 2014. Thursday's appellate decision agreed.
"An injunction breaking up Facebook, ordering it to divest itself of Instagram and WhatsApp under court supervision, would have severe consequences, consequences that would not have existed if the States had timely brought their suit and prevailed," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph.
In addition, Randolph wrote, state allegations claiming that Meta's - then Facebook's - policies placing restrictions on app developers were anticompetitive didn't hold up.
The policies in question, Randolph wrote, simply told app developers they could not use Facebook's platform "to duplicate Facebook's core products," and did not rise to the level of an antitrust violation under federal law.
Although the states argued that Facebook's policies at the time - which have since been removed - discouraged innovation by the company's rivals, the complaint failed to establish how widely the policies affected Facebook's third-party developers."

Comment
Why is 1 judge or a panel of 3 to 8 judges allowed to rule about such a case in general and such a complex matter in particular, specifically when 100s or 1000s experts concerned do explain again and again what is going on?
Even more problematic have become the obvious facts, that judges are no experts in specific fields and there is no indisciplinary panel of highly specialized judges, which both is required.

How should market regulation work otherwise if the authorities do not have the time to observe the developments at the markets, communicate with other authorities and also agencies and experts, get a holistic understanding of what is going on, and develop a legal case?
6 years are in time maybe even 10 years.

What are the severe consequences?
We are unable to see any consequences at all. Break that Meta (Facebook) mess up and everything will go on as usual as is the case with other companies.

By the way:

17:54, 22:26, and 23:34 UTC+2
Mastercard has to use OPS and OPPS of OntoBank

We already have the financial services of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank), including

The company Mastercard with its subsidiary Vocalink and the government of Thailand came too late, despite the

like all the others and therefore have to use the related subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our SOPR. Before the presentation of our Ontologic System (OS) in 2006 and the official introduction of our OntoBank in 2017 digital wallet, managed service, proxy lookup service, resilient, universally accessible, bank-agnostic solution, general mobile-to-mobile, specifically Ontoscope-to-Ontoscope (Os2Os), eXtensible Markup Language (XML) for the field of finance (e.g. ISO 20222), etc., as well as Thailand's vision of a secure digital economy were missing and have been taken from us (source of inspiration, blueprint, copy) (see also the note P27 and EPI SEPA apps are not OntoPay of the 25th of April 2023).
And our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontoverse (Ov), and Ontoscope (Os) is not for free.
This is how it really works. :)

The same holds for other countries and companies, like for example Denmark (MobilePay) (2013), Sweden (Swish) (2012), Austria, and so on.

After being engaged with this specific topic for some time again, we can remember darkly that we also integrated the foundations or basic properties for all kinds of real-time financial applications and services in our OS as well (see also the note SCT Inst based on OS of today and guess why we listed so many ontologies and XML formats related to enterprise, business, commerce, and finance on our website Ontologics.info) and found it quite exotic, provocative, and also visionary, as well as suitable to show our visionary capabilities and competences due to the state of the art at that time and specifically in conjunction with mobile devices and basic functions and services for interbanking, stock exchange operation, and High-Frequency Trading (HFT) for ordinary users without mediating banks and other service providers.
Remember darkly, because these Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) were just more features and possibilities based on our fusion of realities with our Caliber/Calibre and New Reality (NR), which we simply checked off in some few seconds: Oh yes, indeed, ... this can also be done with it.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would also like to give the recommendation to avoid very expensive interfaces and penalties.
Also, we recall that if something is common to all members of our SOPR, then our one and only monopoly regulation kicks in and said thing

As is the case with digital wallet, electronic IDentity, and so on, this regulation applies to instant payment for ordinary customers or users as well.

Similarly, if our SOPR announced something new, then it is not for any copyright troll to steal.

Luckily, the count of plagiarists is decreasing and we will get the rest in line in the next future in one way or another.
But we have to discuss some very important issues with governments and companies in relation to said financial fields and features of our OS.

Not this way, ladies and gentlemen and all inbetween.

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

30.April.2023

12:00 UTC+2
Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, FOSS, and Co. are dead

Now, things are becoming interesting for us as well once again in contrast to observing and documenting the deadborn idea and attempt of

of C.S. and our corporation, despite that is not possible at all.

With our digitial transformation and transition to our Ontologic System (OS), we can already see that also the old structures are transitioning, adapting, or even vanishing as well.
Three of the best examples are the

For sure, everybody can see how the Internet, including the Internet of Things (IoT), is becoming our Ontologic Net (ON).
In the same way, everybody can see how the next generations of the World Wide Web (WWW), Web 3.0, Web 4.0, and Web 5.0, according to our original and unique interpretation, creation, realization, presentation, and disussion, would look like, which means that it is becoming our Ontologic Web (OW).
In addition, everybody can see how realities, including the spectra

are becoming our Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which is something totally new.
Moreover, everybody can see how access places and access devices to our or in OS, including our Ontoscope (Os), are ....
Eventually, everybody can see how reality and virtuality are fusioning to our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR).

But everybody should also be able to see that in the course of this transition to our OS with its Ov the individual is becoming the interface to the Ov, or better said inside the Ov, or correctly said a part of the Ov, and the natural multimodalities respectively the senses and the actions are becoming the APIs to, in, as part of the OS, so to say.
In the course of this, the field of programming also changes to something totally new, which does not rely on the usual APIs anymore, which again are already in our OS, like all texts, pictures, videos, music pieces, compositions, and all other sensual experiences.

We also have observed that the publication of partial plagiarisms of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS) has led to other considerable copyright infringements, which are also based on our related Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
But said AWs and IPs of C.S. have been created, designed, and then presented in 1999 and 2006 and discussed in the subsequent years and therefore C.S. changed this as well.

In the meantime, it is also not debatable and discussible anymore that C.S. has thought it through and created it in its entirety.
Even more interesting, this is only the beginning and getting better and better in the future.

Correspondingly, some first entities have already understood that they must adapt their businesses and how to accomplish this.
For example, they focus on the production of physical goods, and the branding, retailing, and selling of items.
Others are being truly creative by using our OS, specifically one of those illegal variants of our OntoBot, to create original and unique expressions of idea, including ordinary artworks as well as experiences, though the legal environment lacks some adaptions of laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters.

In this relation, we would like to make clear that works of art, which are created and generated in our OS with its Ov and Os, are not considered raw signals and data, but personal signals and data, and therefore not owned by our us as well. Indeed, there are raw signals and data related to such a work of art, such as metadata and other annoymous signals and data, that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has unlimited and unrestricted access to.

Astonishingly, other entities are still in LaLaLand and are trying to reject the rule-base law and order environment and instead to disturb freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.
But they are also understanding that the good times and golden days of the Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, and other locations, and the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) are already over. The Silicon Valley Bank is already done and gone, and what comes next should be no secreat as well anymore. :D