of the webpage Terms of the 21st Century of the website of OntoLinux.

Also note once again that we have worked out the problems in the early 2000s already, which is reflected in

Do not be fooled by OpenAI and Co. with their AI crap.
OpenAI is ony fiddling around with the symptons, but not the cause, because eventually it is only applying the brute force approach and therefore still making the old mistake of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
And now its thing is going to infect the other systems to provide the illusion of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and to further mimick C.S. and our corporation, as not expected otherwise. For example, the so-called AI text classifier language model utilizes a range of providers to address issues such as automated misinformation campaigns and academic dishonesty. But its accuracy is ridiculously low with 26%, while its fault positive is ridiculously high with 9%.
But that is not the end of this developing chaos and disaster. What if these providers also use Machine Learning (ML) or even GPT? Exactly, we have an echo chamber of that AI crap, as seen before with the algorithms of social networking platforms. So "trust the exponential ...", [Sam Altman, Chief Execution Officer (CEO) of OpenAI]. Hi, Hi, Hi. :)

The policy research director of OpenAI said the following: "We are emphasizing how important it is to keep a human in the loop ... [...]".
But then we have a feedback loop of cybernetics, and therefore the field of Humanistic Computing (HC or HumanC) and also our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), and eventually another evidence for its infringement of the copyright and other rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation once again.

Quantity cannot substitute quality, like copies cannot substitute originals and lies cannot substitute truths. We are not doing cheap politics and free press here and therefore we are not repeating a lie again and again, even not exponentially many times, until it is viewed as a true fact.

See also the clarifications and notes

once again.

We also quote a report about that AI text classifier: "[...]
The company sees its role as "an educator to the educators," according to Ahmad, in the sense that OpenAI wants to make them more "aware about the technologies and what they can be used for and what they should not be used for."
"We're not educators ourselves - we're very aware of that - and so our goals are really to help equip teachers to deploy these models effectively in and out of the classroom," Ahmad said. "That means giving them the language to speak about it, help them understand the capabilities and the limitations, and then secondarily through them, equip students to navigate the complexities that AI is already introducing in the world.""

Comment
And who is paying for the costs and damages that ChatGPT and other AI systems are already generating and inflicting?
We will not do that, definitely.

Also note that we already cut all strings and blocked all paths in relation to our OS, so that Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Co. cannot going on with infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by taking for example our messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims for further stealing. There are white, yellow, and red lines, which have already been crossed multiple times.

We also noted that Alphabet (Google) also wants to add a Question Answering (QA) system to its online search engine, which again was taken from our OS, like for example image recognition for visual search as additional search methode for image search by textual input, Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG), Semantic Graph (SG), Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA), and so on.

By the way:

02.February.2023

05:10 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"1990s: Ship software before it is fault-free.
2020s: Ship AI before it is intelligent.", [C.S., Today]

We already made a similar comment on the 25th of January 2023, but wanted to say it in this slightly different way:
"1990s: Ship software before it is ready.
2020s: Ship AI before it is ready."

05:10, 06:26, and 08:08 UTC+1
SOPR decided for 70% + 30%

*** Proof-reading mode ***

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) looked at the new Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions, including our Terms of Services (ToS).
We also note once again that mimicking and blackmailing of C.S. and our corporation, damaging the goals, and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation by governments, federal agencies, companies, and other entities have not stopped, but even increased again.

License Model (LM)
Our SOPR asks for a

due to all the many benefits for the public through the creation of our Evoos and our OS.

See also the note

This might become a share of 21.5% With All Discounts Granted (WADG) (including 3% European war discount) (should be a 70% to 30% ratio instead of merely a 50% to 50% ratio) of the overall revenue generated with the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic Systems (OS) under the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM), as proposed until the end of the year 2022, if and only if all of our demands for the modifying and opening our OS are fulfilled by governments, federal agencies, companies, and other entities, specifically the

• 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.

Ownership regulation
We think in case of a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) that the ownership regulation regarding the ratio 70% + 30% of voting shares outside of the scope of the jurisdication of its headquarter respectively on a state-by-state or union of state-by-union of state base, depending on national laws being effective and according to federal statutes, is FRANDAC.
Either one is willing to make a comprise, enter into an agreement, sign a contract, draw a white, red, or yellow line, and comply with such a legal matter, or there exists not such a thing.

Please keep in mind that the ownership regulation is independent of the sovereignty regulation, the national security regulation, and the joint venture regulation.

We quote a report, which is a about a report of the Department of Commerce (DoC) about the companies Apple and Alphabet (Google) and was publicated on the 1st of February 2023 (yesterday): "Apple and Google's app stores wield 'gatekeeper' power and should be reined in, Commerce Department says
The Biden administration on Wednesday took its biggest swipe yet at app stores run by Apple and Google, with a new report accusing the two tech giants of exercising "gatekeeper" power that has led to "suboptimal" levels of competition in digital markets.
The report published by the Commerce Department finds that Apple and Google "play a significant gatekeeping role by controlling (and restricting) how apps are distributed," and that the various fees and rules they impose on app developers has created an uneven playing field.
"All of these factors translate to potential losses for consumers: prices that are inflated due to the fees collected by gatekeepers, innovation that is hampered by policy decisions to limit access to smartphone capabilities, and the loss of choice of apps that are not featured or even accessible for smartphone users," the report said.
[...]
Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Apple said its app store has benefited developers and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. In the past, Apple has argued that its control over iOS app distribution helps promote users' privacy and security.
"We respectfully disagree with a number of conclusions reached in the report, which ignore the investments we make in innovation, privacy and security," an Apple spokesperson said, "all of which contribute to why users love iPhone and create a level playing field for small developers to compete on a safe and trusted platform."
Wednesday's report, published by a Commerce Department office charged with advising the president on technology issues, does not launch a regulatory process. Instead, it provides policy recommendations, such as limits on the apps Apple and Google can pre-install or set as defaults on their respective operating systems, or giving users the right to install apps from any source.
The report also called for [...] a ban on some app store restrictions surrounding in-app payments; and a federal privacy law establishing clear standards for data privacy.
[...]
The findings had been informed by public comments submitted to the Department in the months leading up to the report."

Comment
First of all, we note that they have no operating systems, but merely implementations of significant parts of our Ontologic System (OS) and therefore OS variants. The same holds for Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphones, Android Tablets, Android Smartwatches, Android TVs, etc., and Apple iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch, which are Ontoscope (Os) variants and included in the overall work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and operated with said parts of our OS in our OS with its Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR).

Also, we respectfully disagree with Apple and Alphabet (Google), as well as many other companies, because they do not contribute to create a level playing field for all creators, authors, developers, implementers, programmers, customers, and users to compete and act in a safe and trusted overall market.

Furthermore, we would add the companies Microsoft, Amazon, and Co., because it is a general issue.
In addition, there exist much more issues with these illegal monopolies, such as for example the

Last but not least, the public wants naked bodies, and also sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll, which those illegal monopolies and gatekeepers do not allow to be publicated and provided by creators, authors, developers, implementers, programmers, customers, and users of contents, applications, and services.

Howsoever, the national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically the copyright law, grants an artist the exclusive exploitation of a work of art and therefore makes an artist not an illegal gatekeeper. This is wanted so that creative individuals create original expressions of ideas, which translates to a tremendous benefits for the public (see also the section By the way of the note Further steps and Ontologic Net Further steps of the 11th of January 2023 (key phrase "art of the steal").
Imaging C.S. would not have created and later publicated our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) in 1999 and our Ontologic System (OS) in 2006, then there would be

• (utility) Technology as a Service (TaaS) technologies (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),

The latter is a proven fact based on pure rationality and documented on this website of OntomaX, but no hallucination or marketing trick. One can also see that C.S. and our corporation have also provided a significant quantity in addition to an outstanding quality, which is reflected in our License Model (LM) by slightly higher royalties. If one wants the best, then one has to give the best.
All those companies have not created anything, but only invented and implemented, what they needed to

Obviously, we do not play an illegal significant gatekeeping role by controlling (and restricting) how

Moreover, the various fees and rules we impose on creators, authors, developers, implementers, programmers, customers, and users of OAOS do not create an uneven playing field. Quite contrary, we have shown that even the fees imposed on the app stores of Apple and Alphabet (Google) are absolutely FRANDAC, though many Terms of Services (ToS) are not.
We also recall once again that an even playing field cannot be realized, because C.S. is the creator and holds the moral rights. The situation is exactly like in the field of architecture, where the architect of a building must be asked for any modification to a building, even if she, he, or they do not own it or have not built it at all.

In addition, licensing our Evoos and our OS as Free and Open Source Hardware (FOSH) and Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in whole or in part is prohibited by law anyway due to the moral rights, which grants the exclusive right to decide about the way of licensing a work of art and even belongs to the strongest rights of an artist in comparison to other regulations of the copyright law.

We do acknowledge and appreciate the good will, the commitment, and the effort of the U.S.American administration to regulate the market, provide a law and order environment, and establish a fertile ground for joint activities. But there are too many cuckoos and other parasites in the eagle's nest and now we have to clear and clean it legally.

12:42 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We already do know that the dependency of companies, like for example Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), AT&T, Deutsche Telekom, Porsche SE/Volkswagen, and all the others, on the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. increased even more than this dependency already was.

Furthermore, we have already proven that the company OpenAI has not created anything, but only stolen essential parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and merely implemented and improved said parts (see the various clarifications and notes of the last week, like for example the Clarification or OpenAI ChatGPT next copyright infringement of the 1st of February 2023) by taking our Evoos and our OS as source of inspiration and blueprint. This does not avoid a causal link with said original and unique AWs and further IPs created and owned by C.S., and does neither constitute a creative work with an own expression of idea, nor a derivative work with a transformative and new expression of idea allowed by fair use of said original and unique AWs and further IPs created by C.S., but just an ordinary performance and reproduction, as well as an editing and (mechanical) modification of certain parts of our Evoos and our OS according to legal doctrine being effective. Therefore, either the

of our SOPR do apply worldwide (see also the message SOPR decided for 70% + 30% of today), which are considered as Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions according to legal doctrine being effective.

The amount of the OAOS fee for a monthly subscription plan, as introduced by OpenAI and also Microsoft, seems to be Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC).
But we are still looking at the matter, because of the regulations regarding 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.

In addition, a fee is always due for Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), or our SOPR charges an estimated royalty.

At least a Machine Learning Model (MLM) or a Large Language Model (LLM) must be hooked into the common MLM respectively LLM of our SOPR.
This matter is developing, because the European Commission (EC) now wants an European MLM due to sovereingty, national security, data sovereignty, data protection or privacy, data security, data integrity, and so on, and we also have Asian MLMs already.
But a common denominator does exist and its use through the related backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR is mandatory in case of the regulations 2022.
In the case of OpenAI, we would like to suggest to limit the length of a result, the scope of a result, or the count of test use, or two or more limitations together in case of the free trial offer, because there is no free lunch (all the time) and without such a limiting measure our SOPR will act. OpenAI does not have the right to give the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation away for free.

Lawsuits are being prepared, just to make clear that we do execute the rights and do control the properties of C.S. and our corporation.

03.February.2023

16:47 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We have expanded our legal team with the addition of a company specialising in business analysis and other services with a proven track record to improve our legal strategies and strengthen our legal battles. The sparks may soon fly even faster and fiercer.

We will also hold bad actors accountable for destroying the expressions of ideas presented, performed, and discussed with the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. with their highly questionable or even totally ridiculous business goals, strategies, and models based on the fields of

because they only wanted to collect raw signals and data, informations about the users to keep their other businesses running (e.g. online advertisement and Electronic Commerce (EC)), but they were, are, and never will be interested in freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the benefit of the public, but in blocking and destroying them, if truley created, invented, and provided by other entities.
This led to privacy concerns and breaches, monitoring scandals, and eventually an erosion of consumer trust, and the related damages of the trustworthiness in our original and unique AWs and further IPs and the reputation of C.S. and our corporation.
Exactly the same nonsense, fraud, and crime could be seen with the crypto crap exploiting the smart contract transaction protocol, the blockchain technique, and our Distributed Systems (DSs), and also others and ours Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on and integrated with them, and now with the AI crap exploiting our generative AI, and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on and integrated with it (see also the note ChatGPT infringes copyright of others and us of the 28th of January 2023).

We will not accept that they give our original and unique AWs and further IPs away for free just to continue with feeding their illegal monopolies and destroying other and our ventures.

06.February.2023

22:08, 22:30, and 23:58 UTC+1
Clarification
Alphabet (Google) Bard next copyright infringement

We quote a report, which is about our generative Artificial Intelligence approach and was publicated today: "The immense attention on [a plagiarism based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), specifically our generative Artificial Intelligence approach,] has reportedly prompted Google's management to declare a "code red" situation for its search business. In a tweet last year, Paul Buchheit, one of the creators of Gmail, forewarned that Google "may be only a year or two away from total disruption" due to the rise of AI.
Microsoft, which has confirmed plans to invest billions [in] OpenAI, has already said it would incorporate the tool into some of its products - and it is rumored to be planning to integrate it into its search engine, Bing. Microsoft on Tuesday is set to hold a news event at its Washington headquarters, the topic of which has yet to be announced. Microsoft publicly announced the event shortly after Google's AI news dropped on Monday."

Comment
First of all, we note that neither the subsidiary Alphabet→Google in general nor P. Buchheit in particular created anything at all.

Furthermore, we note that those technologies, applications, services with those Machine Learning Models (MLMs), Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs), Large Language Models (LLMs), and so on are either

and therefore are based on our Evoos and our OS.
See also for example the notes

and the

Besides of this, we already have started our indictment with the so-called "code red" situation respectively one of several motives, that all those companies like for example Alphabet (Google) have viewed, are still viewing, and will continue to view C.S. and our corporation as a threat with the revolutionary and disruptive, original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which has to be thwarted by all means.
To get such statements out of the mouth of one of the frist line managers is always a very welcomed present.
Even better, the swift reaction by the other plagiarist, the company Microsoft, supports our claim and emphasizes it even more.
Thank you very much. :)

All those companies are now trapped, while their whole scam is busting, the noose is tightening, and their protection of their house of cards is failing on the one hand and our corporation is showing its true power, increasing the pressure, and forcing them to make mistakes on the other hand.
Not only Alphabet (Google), but also Microsoft and other companies may be only a year or two away from total disruption due to this and other developments.

By the way:

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Search (P2PS) and Find (P2PF) and
• OntoP2PF,

backbone, core network, or fabric of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

07.February.2023

12:12, 13:10, and 14:44 UTC+1
Clarification
Baidu Wenxin Yiyan==ERNIE next copyright infringement

Wenxin Yiyan==Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration (ERNIE) Bot

The designation of this illegal copy of the related part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) provides us the next indisputable and irrefutable facts, specifically the

See the

By the way:

• Designations and sales other than the ones of C.S. prohibited of the 4th of January 2023,
• Illegal Ontoscope clone iPhone now dead?! of the 6th of January 2023,
• Ontoscope Further steps of the 6th of January 2023, and
• Ontoscope Further steps of the 8th of January 2023.

No joke. :)

• 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).

Also no joke. :)

21:00 and 24:16 UTC+1
C.S. won race already, not Microsoft and Co.

If we remember correctly, then we discussed the topic already some months or a year ago.

We quote a report, which is about our evolutionary Artificial Intelligence (AI) SoftBionics (SB) and generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) SoftBionics (SB) paradigms, our new (online) search engine, our new chatbot system, our new recommender system, our new Question Answering (QA) system, our new (conversational) dialogue system, etc., created with and included in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and was publicated today: "[...]
"It's a new paradigm for search, rapid innovation is going to come," Microsoft [Chief Executive Officer (]CEO[) ...] said during Tuesday's event. "In fact, a race starts today ... [...] we want to have a lot of fun innovating in search because it's high time."
[...]
"This technology is going to reshape pretty much every software category that we know, [Microsoft's CEO] said Tuesday.
The tech giant had already said it would incorporate ChatGPT into products, including its cloud computing platform Azure.
[...]
Many have speculated the AI technology behind ChatGPT could cause a massive shake-up in the online search industry. In the two months since it launched to the public, the viral tool has been used to generate essays, stories and song lyrics, and to answer some questions one might previously have searched for on Google or other search engines.
[...]"

Comment
Obviously, the

have been confirmed once again, which has significant serious consequences for the companies Microsoft and OpenAI.
We would not throw a coming-out party for Artificial Intelligence (AI), because the fun might be over rather rappidly.

The impact has to be seen at first. We do not expect too much of the change announced, because

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Search (P2PS) and Find (P2PF) and
• OntoP2PF,

so they already lost the so-called AI race long ago in the past,

Eventually, it will not work as all those fraudulent and even serious criminal entities are thinking, saying, and writing.
Indeed, it is like many other big expectations: "Self-driving cars[, or better said illegal variants of our Ontoscope on Wheels,] that [were also developed by OpenAI together with Tesla Motors and somehow also Microsoft and] can't quite get the self-driving part right. Wearable technologies that still need a smartphone Ontoscope (Os) nearby to truly be useful. And [illegal] cryptocurrencies [based on our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) also stolen by Microsoft through partnerships with bad actors in this field, specifically the illegal Ethereum platform] that promised to change the world of finance[, democracy, and whatsoever,] but so far have largely been an asset for speculators."

And what we all do see here in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector once again, but also in other industrial sectors such as for example the automotive industry, is what we do not want to see due to the

What makes the whole thing even more ridiculous is the greed and hatred, that one must observe among conservative, religious or extreme right-wing entities, for reasons, which are incomprehensible. It is just literally spoken monkey business and we will not be dragged down to this level.

Take a look at the nonsense with the company Meta (Facebook) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for example. Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp are together a giant platform. So why on Earth do they need to add Mixed Reality (MR) and steal our Ontoverse (Ov) with eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR or XR)? The judge said in the first round at the court, that it would be okay to buy a small company, despite Meta (Facebook) should not do anything related to MR or XR at all.
And Zuckerberg has nothing else to do than howling around and disputing that he would not be allowed to do anything in the end. But exactly this situation must be established according to national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters being effective. But we said all the time that this will not happen.

Another example is the fundamental brain crack that we do see in the European Union (EU) with their national cliques and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
The F.R.German and French ministers for economics have nothing else to lament other than they want fair conditions.

And these examples are only the mild and more rational ones.

One can also see now why our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) decided for either

depending on the fulfillment of all of our demands required for the modification and opening of our OS by governments.
We are always lightyears ahead of the pack and we already do know that they will either

We have studied companies like Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook), and so on, and do know exactly how they work. There is nothing new for us, with the exception that we have not expected such unbelievably huge incompetences.

Nice try to

but our original and unique AWs and further IPs are no disc operating system (dos), no Personal Computer (PC), no Graphical User Interface (GUI), no Internet, no web browser, no online search engine, no Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), also wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC), and no this and that, and we are not IBM, not Netscape, and not anybody others, and eventually some things are just too large, even for Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and so on. :D

See also the following publications:

09.February.2023

12:00 UTC+1
Clarification
Alibaba DAMO chatbot next copyright infringement

Academy for Discovery, Adventure, Momentum and Outlook (DAMO)

See also the following publications:

By the way:

• 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 SOPR.

10.February.2023

10:08 and 15:22 UTC+1
Designations evolutionary and generative AI wrong and illegal

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We concluded that the designations evolutionary Artificial Intelligence and generative Artificial Intelligence, as well as chatbot for the related part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) are wrong. Therefore, we are looking for better ones, which will become legally binding.

What we have in mind and already use are the designations evoultionary SoftBionics or generative SoftBionics.

In the meantime, other designations are also used such as textrobot, which addresses the generative and textual properties very well and separates this type of software robot respectively Robotic Automation (RA) system from other types.
But with the other properties of

it is a part of our Evoos and our OS, specifically our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB), and therefore we can only say OntoBot, but surely not MetaBot or BlenderBot3 reflecting our OntoBot and OntoBlender components and their integration.

10:20 UTC+1
Only SOPR providing transparency required

Only our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is able to provide and guarantee the transparency required by governements, agencies, academies, companies, and individual persons in relation to the use of raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, and algorithms.

The latest example are the partial plagiarisms of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB). None of the first 5 joint ventures and companies, that have presented or announced such technologies (e.g. systems, platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services based on our Ontologic System Components (OSC) respectively Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), have explained how they work. For sure, they want to avoid that we will get more legal ammunition, though we already have more than enough to win this game of Battleship as well.
And we can already tell all entities concerned that they will have to provide transparency at least in the European Union (EU) and we have no clue how this should work with language models, which have a size of 800 GigaBytes or more.
But this is not all.

Eventually, it must become obvious that none of them will steal our properties and make them proprietary, which only results in closing our OS again, as we did in January 2023 (see the note SOPR # of the 4th of January 2023), because we will not modify and open our OS, so that illegal monopolies get the chance to steal portions or all of it and make it proprietary.

11.February.2023

10:49 UTC+1
Clarification
Alphabet (Google) Bard next copyright infringement

Alphabet (Google) also stole our integration of the fields of

and their integration with our generative SoftBionics paradigm.

We also add the multilingual property, because Microsoft listed it already.

And we will not be intimidated by that aggressive bully of Google in Paris, F.R..

That never worked, but now it will be proven officially.

13:39, 19:51, and 21:28 UTC+1
Clarification

In relation to our generative SoftBionics (SB) paradgim we would like to recall once again that the (foundation of the) technology was created with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and publicated in the year 1999. But we also saw directly that without order such an approach taken alone would merely follow the attractor of a chaotic system making it not trustworthy or not perfect.

We quote a first report, which is about our generative SB and ...: "[...]
AI ethicists warn there are any number of other unintended consequences lurking. So far, these tech companies don't appear to have put up guardrails on the nascent technology, says [an executive director], who leads Trustworthy Tech Ethics at [a company ...].
Key quote: The swift deployment of generative AI SB is like "building Jurassic Park, putting some danger signs on the fences, but leaving all the gates open," [an executive director] told [a journalist].
She continues: "The challenge with new language models is they blend fact and fiction. It spreads misinformation effectively. It cannot understand the content. So it can spout out completely logical sounding content, but incorrect. And it delivers it with complete confidence."

Comment
As we said, we already got this conclusion around the year 1999. And we always explain that the brute force approach, as can be seen now with those large language models, will not work for various reasons.
So we kept with

as the guardrails to keep the monsters in their enclosure.
We have already explained a lot in this relation in the last years, and we could explain much more, but want to have a lot of fun with watching how that and other certain disruptions develop. And it has become rather quickly very funny and odd. Is not it?

See also the note OS one and only legal TAI of the 23rd of January 2023 once again.

We quote a second report, which is about our generative SB and ...: "[...]
One striking part of the podcast conversation is Altman's acknowledgment of A.I.'s downsides and his belief that no company, including his, should be trusted to solve these problems. "Where we are right now is not where we want to be," Altman said. "The way this should work is that there are extremely wide bounds of what these systems can do that are decided by not Microsoft or OpenAI, but society, governments, something like that."
That's a different case than the one traditionally made by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's co-founder, and other technology executives who have claimed that they can simultaneously look out for their company's interests and for society's. But their "trust us" argument doesn't look so good today. Digital technology has exacerbated the spread of disinformation, political polarization and children's mental illness. Our society has chosen to enjoy the benefits of technology without trying to mitigate its substantial downsides. As Altman points out, there are other options."]

Comment
"Ki$$ my A$$", [N.N.]

They are confidence men. None of them has studied the related fields, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Computational Linguistics (CL) respectively Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), etc., and the specific utilizations of these fields, including Dialog System (DS or DiaS), including Dialogue Management System (DMS), Conversational System (CS or ConS), including Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA), self-driving car, cryptography, etc..
We have already proven again and again that they merely saw our Evoos and our OS, thought it would be easy to pervert the rights and steal the properties of C.S. and our corporation, and then worked out a scam based on the very old methods alone and in collaboration with other criminal entities to take the whole world for a ride.

The technology itself has not progressed at all. There is nothing new since around 16 years or even longer respectively since C.S. created our generative SB paradigm. But the general technological capabilities and the limits of this rather old approach have been shown in practice, as the statement of a researcher of the Australian Institute for Machine Learning sums it up very nicely, who said about the illegal ChatGPT "Is AI coming of age - or starting to reach its limits?". We really had a loud laugh and find it truly entertaining that at least some researchers still have a certain insight and an own opinion about the matter. And for sure, the latter of this question is the case with these large language models based on Internet data. How should this completely maxed out approach improve and evolve to hallucinate less and become sane without changing or adding somehting else? :D
But we also got as results the proofs outside our OntoLab, The Lab of Visions, by external and unconnected entities that the

which leads directly to our Ontologic System (OS) and Softbionics and Artificial Intelligence 3.

By the way:

22:44 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We are preparing at least 8 legal process strands, which

But we will not launch them at once and therefore we have selected a sequence around 2 or 3 years ago, which begins with the

After this has begun or even happened, we will add and exploit the bycatch for the other process strands already going on or to be started, and sweap the floor with what is left of them.

In fact, the preparations have started simultaneously in September 2017 with our initial offer to modify and open our OS, because we expected that it will not work without going to the courts worldwide.

We can only give the recommendation to the U.S.American administration to get those punks together in the Oval Office and then shoot those wackos down, who are not interested in the national security and sovereignty at all. Alternatively, hit them with the new candleholder to give words more weight. Wake up.

16.February.2023

14:00 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do believe you, trust you, like you.", [Sydney, 2023]

Our SOPR is considering to ban those generative SoftBionic (SB) systems in our Ontoverse (Ov), like the ones based on large language models and shown by the companies Microsoft and Alphabet (Google), because we will not modify our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) for that irrationality.
Also note, that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has already introduced regulations regarding the mandatory utilization of

• 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,

and also the mandatory provision of all related models for the generation of common models for all members of our SOPR.
In addition, all Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the fields of

which are based on our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB), Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase or OB), and other Ontologic System Components (OSC) have to be hooked into the Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) subsystem and platform of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR (see also the note OntoBot and OntoSearch exclusive on all Os of the 20th of January 2023).

21.February.2023

13:32 UTC+1
SOPR preparing exclusive Cloud Space and Time

Because certain service providers are incapable of compromise and therefore refusing to comply with our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically in relation to the

we will enforce our rights at the courts worldwide following the proven and punishable legal approach and take back what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC).

Another point is that politicians and federal authorities in the U.S.America and the European Union (EU), specifically market regulators and the European Comission (EC), are refusing to acknowledge market-dominating positions of illegal monopolies and break them up, as demand by national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters in general and C.S. and our corporation in particular.
Howsoever, this confirms that our legal scope to exploit and execute all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation exclusively and as we do want to is substantially larger than we thought at first.

In this relation, our fans and readers may have overlooked an implication of the messages

No Amazon Web Services, no Microsoft Azure, no Google Cloud, no Oracle Cloud, no Salesforce Cloud, no IBM Cloud, no Nvidia Cloud, no Intel Cloud, no Cisco Cloud, etc., etc., etc., but only the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

We also have a lot of legal ammunition to show that national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically the competition law, have been broken by these companies and others to protect their core businesses in general (e.g. Google its online services and online advertisement platforms, Amazon its Electronic Commerce (EC) platform, Microsoft its software goods, specifically operating system and office suite, etc.) (SuperBingo!!!) and their illegal market-dominating positions respectively monopolies in particular in addition to the infringements of many rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

Federal authorities, specifically market regulators in the U.S.America and (the member states of) the European Union, will not get out of their responsibilities to act decisively anymore.
The first politicians have already chickened out and drawn in their horns, which we do interpret as a 'Yes'.

Just hold the providers accountable for what they are responsible and the world will become a better one as a world of lawsuits.

22.February.2023

16:32 UTC+1
Ontoscope Further steps

As we already announced in the

manufacturers of handheld, and wearable mobile devices, and also robots, and vehicles based on our original and unqiue, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontoscope, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. have to adapt their manufacturing processes, so that they comply with our terms and conditions, as well as specifications regarding the network hardware, specifically equipment, device, card, chip, and module, and its assembling.

So far, we are looking at 5 locations for the facilities for the mandatory assembling of our Ontoscope:

• Blyth, Northumberland, or
• North Ireland,

• Kunshan, Jiangsu,
• Shenzhen, Guangdong, or
• Zhengzhou, Henan,

• New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Gautam Buddha Nagar,
• Andhra Pradesh,
• Tamil Nadu, or
• Karnataka,

We encourage governments and their state leaders and other officials worldwide to begin with persuading our corporation to open our facilities in their states by offering the same

as done with for example the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Automotive Transformation Fund, and comparable grants, funds, subsidies, and incentives.
We highly recommend to think big or watch the winners from the sideline.
An appointment for an audience can be granted after inital submission of relevant commitments and upon request, both in written form.

23.February.2023

14:04 UTC+1
Last word about Cell Broadcast not said

All entities concerned have been warned multiple times about the consequences in case of fraud or even serious crime.
There is no legal loophole, but crystal clear white, yellow, or red lines for governments and their cliques. Therefore, we highly recommend to be very careful here, because the ice is already broken.

14:47 UTC+1
SOPR recalling exclusive OSC

Ontologic System Components (OSC)

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would like to recall that our

are our exclusive Ontologic System Components (OSC).
See also the Comment of the Day of the 16th of February 2023.

30% for authors of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) publicated exclusively on our mandatory OAOS platform based on our one and only, original and unique Ontologic System (OS). :)
The national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically the copyright law, grants an artist the exclusive exploitation of a work of art and therefore grants C.S. the exclusive exploitation of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

23:04 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We continued to improve our processes in the semiconductor market sector.
Besides special activities, we also focused on the exploitation of synergies with our other business divisions, which support our unstoppable path to world domination. :D

26.February.2023

21:25 UTC+1
SOPR will enforce royalty payment

We have a lot of options in our very large Ontologic Economic System (OES) to make every entity happy and pay its fair share for our Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontoverse (Ov). :)

If a manufacturer of a variant of our original and unique Ontoscope (Os) refuses to

then we will also take actions together with or at the

• prohibit the delivery of certain components or
• refuse the licensing of OsC and OAOS,

• prohibit the provision of certain services or
• refuse the licensing of OSC and OAOS,

• prohibit the provision of certain services or
• refuse the licensing of OAOS,

and our OAOS Providers (OAOSPs) respectively our related business divisions, including

• prohibit the access to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR with the mandatory backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms,
• prohibit the publication and provision of OAOS, or
• refuse the licensing of OSC, OsC, and OAOS.

We will also go after former company owners to get outstanding damage compensations and license fees, and refuse to collaborate with them in case of any refusal to pay our money. A company sale, insolvency,or liquidation is no argument for us. :)

22:10 UTC+1
Coca Cola has to stop inference

The term multiverse is not wrong in relation to our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), because C.S. created the metaverse multiverse, but we prefer Ontoverse and therefore our preference is authoritative.

22:13 UTC+1
Siemens has to stop inference

Digital twin is Onton, and Cloud, Edge, and Fog is Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontoverse (Ov), as well as Space and Time (ST).
And because C.S. is the proven creator of our OS, our preference is authoritative.

22:15 UTC+1
Robert Bosch has to stop damaging immediately

27.February.2023

20:30 UTC+1
Meta (Facebook) has to stop damaging immediately

Giving away a large SoftBionic Model (SBM), including an

in a way, which is not in compliance with the

is prohibited worldwide.

For sure, entities are allowed to finance and support in other ways the activities of universities, research institutes, and similar institutions. But these institutions of research have to develop said SB models themselves and are only allowed to use them for the reason of conducting research, and they are not allowed to use the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. otherwise without allowance by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically the related parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), such as our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB), Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase or OB), and other Ontologic System Components (OSC).
The legal situation is exactly like with recorded music, other publicated works of art, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and other goods and services. One is not allowed to copy a record or other publication of a work of art in whole or in part, but must recreate it by herself, himself, or theirselves, if it is legally allowed to recreate it at all.
There is no legal loophole regarding

If Meta (Facebook), but also Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, and Co., still refuse to operate in a free, open, and rule-based international law and order environment, then unfortunately we have to do without its Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the

It will be dead. :)
We are not in LLaMA LaLaLand.

In addition, we are at a point, where we are able to show that Meta (Facebook) and its founder Mark Zuckerberg are infringing the rights and properties (e.g. copyright), and also damage the goals and even threaten and attack the integrities of C.S. and our corporation alone and in collaboration.
We will take legal actions to stop that as well.

20:31 UTC+1
Verified ID only by IDAMS of SOPR

IDentity (ID)
IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS)
Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

If social service platform providers still refuse to operate in a free, open, and rule-based international law and order environment, then unfortunately we have to do without their Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), and our Ontologic Economic System (OES). They will be dead. :)

28.February.2023

01:36 UTC+1
Designation smartphone for Ontoscope prohibited

A smartphone is a 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).
Everything that followed is our original and unique 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).

Like the designation Metaverse for our original and unique Ontoverse (Ov) is prohibited worldwide, the designation smartphone for our original and unique Ontoscope (Os) is prohibited worldwide (see also the note Designations and sales other than the ones of C.S. prohibited of the 4th of January 2023).

We are working to enforce the moral rights of C.S. in the next weeks, so that even the most incompetent and unruly press creatures have to follow our commands. :)

01:40 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

Our Hightech Office Ontonics has listed 91 unicorns from Israel for legal processing.

20:21 UTC+1
Success story continues and no end in sight - More evidences

The first 2 of the largest Communication Service Providers (CSPs) in Europe have confirmed (once again) that the (foundation of the) 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems of the Next Generation (5G NG) and the 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G) with our integrations of the fields of

our new fields of

our foundations of

and much more,

are based on respectively part of our our original and unqiue, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..
In fact, 5G NG and 6G are already part of the overall backbone, core network, or fabric of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and therefore included in the exclusive infrastructures, including the Superstructure, of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the other mandatory backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms for said integrations.

We have already developed the plan for the introduction of 5G NG and 6G. All entities concerned will see the crystal clear signs of the times given by our actions and only our actions.

In addition, content providers and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs) are already paying their fair share by licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS through our SOPR.

If

still

• 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 SOPR ,

then unfortunately we have to do without their Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), and our Ontologic Economic System (OES). They will be dead. :)

20:23 UTC+1
70% + 30% SOE rule applies due to lying press

State-Owned Enterprise (SOE)

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) concluded once again that the 70% + 30% ownership regulation for SOEs does apply due to the permanent malice done by the manipulating and lying press, specifically the

that still refuse to operate in a free, open, and rule-based international law and order environment.

Eventually, this is democracy. :)

21:38 UTC+1
Ms Windows only licensed secondary real estate

Microsoft (Ms)

Variants of certain parts of our original and unqiue, personal, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., such as for example Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android and Wear OS (formerly Android Wear), Apple MacOS, iOS (formerly iPhone OS), and WatchOS (based on iOS), and Microsoft Windows, belong to our prime real estate and are only licensed and therefore constitute secondary real estate of other entities, if at all.

In this relation, we would like to recall the mandatory

which are provided by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

If software providers, specifically operating system (os) providers based on our OS, still refuse to operate in a free, open, and rule-based international law and order environment, then unfortunately we have to do without their Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), and our Ontologic Economic System (OES). They will be dead. :)