in case of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS).
And we think that he does exactly know that we are completely right, because we are only recalling the rulings of the courts.
In fact, our Evoos and our OS with its OntoBot with its generative and creative Bionics are original and unique works of art, which, without any doubt, but with all proofs and certifications given multiple times over the years, constitute a new expression of idea, which is transformative and was not created as a commerical alternative to earlier works of art.
Furthermore, none of those fraudsters or even serious criminals in the field, which is wrongly called generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), get the allowance for the performance and reproduction of our generative and creative Bionics, because C.S. does not have to modify and will not modify our OS with its OntoBot, which implies that those plagiarists are not allowed to perform and reproduce the transformative expression of idea of C.S. at all.
"This industry is so much simpler" might be a correct assessment, but art is not that simple.

We also belong to one of the first entities, that curate their sets of foundational data, including training data for systems of the field of SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL) respectively Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.).
We are even the ones, who most potentially have created the concept of validated and verified AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CV, CA, ABS, AOP, MAS, IAS, CAS, CL, NLP, NLU, NMP, NMU, SC, AL, etc., or at least the ones, who made this approach one of the basic properties of our OS.
This is a completely different approach than what our supertrolls from the Silicon Valley, on the Silicon Allee, and at other locations are doing.

When he is right, he is just repeating our points of view and statements publicated on this website of OntomaX.

For sure, he has also the problem with investing in start-ups, which are depending on the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, because said start-ups need the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) granted solely by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Eventually, we will not let it happen and we can assure everybody in this solar system that due to a certain automatism it will not happen that really everything, including truths, facts, values, basic rights, freedoms, constitutions, laws, orders, sovereignties, ownerships, etc., and even the technological progress, and the social and societal development, are perverted by those anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant, as well as totally brain cracked psychopaths, who have lost the contact with reality, because we are activating the circuit breaker by executing the laws and exclusive rights of others and us, implementing the interpretations and rulings of the courts, and restoring the understandings and views of the public.

See once again the

14:59 UTC+2
Takeover of Silicon Valley anti-trust conform

We already do have the

Therefore, there exists

which all are supported by the national and international copyright laws and the U.S.American Sherman act (we do not have to make business and to modify and open our OS), and the takeover of companies like Alphabet (Google), IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, Nvidia, and Co. are legal respectively are no violation of the anti-trust law.

Furthermore, there exists

So once again, comply with the

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

02.June.2023

06:20 and 11:19 UTC+2
Creations enable benefit for the public

Well then, let us just summarize the most important points and views for the

once again:

versus

Either the resulting contradiction has to be resolved legally or instead the situation simply has to be registered that

• do not disturb and
• cannot disturb,

the competition,

• disturbance of the competition,
• hindering of the competition, and
• abuse of the market power

is avoided by

• thwarting the assimilation or appropriation of our works of art,
• preventing the emergence of new (unwanted) monopolies, and
• blocking the enlargement of existing (unwanted) monopolies,

• operate in an orderly manner,
• improve, and
• redesign

their core businesses on the basis of their own creations and innovations, but merely copy other creations and innovations,

• do not help shape and
• cannot help shape

the competition by vertical market integration at all, if a work of art is already

• integrating and
• performed and reproduced in a vertically integrating way,

and

• do not allow and
• cannot allow

that the competition for a work of art takes place with the person creating the (art)work at eye level.

In addition, the following formalities are or rather would be observed:

• Ontoscope, also wrongly called smartphone,
• OntoNet, OntoWeb, OntoVerse, also wrongly called cloud, edge, fog,
• Ontoversum, also wrongly called metaverse,
• OntoBot, ontology, generative and creative Bionics, also wrongly called chatbot, generative Artificial Intelligence,
• Ontoloigic art, contemporary art of the 21st century, also wrongly called physical-digital (phygital) art,
• etc.,

that is roughly estimated to be somewhere in the 4- or 5-digit trillion or 1- or 2-digit trillion Euro range

• benefits to the public are, after all, only made possible by our creative actions and goodwill, and
• advantages outweigh the disadvantages, if any, compared to all disadvantageous alternatives, which means other illegal monopolies

Well, have fun. :)

Welcome to the Ontoversum (Ov).

Schöpfungen ermöglichen Nutzen für die Öffentlichkeit
Na dann fassen wir einfach die wichtigsten Punkte und Ansichten für die

noch einmal zusammen:

versus

Entweder ist der sich ergebende Widerspruch legal aufzulösen oder stattdessen die Situation einfach zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, dass

• nicht stören und
• nicht stören könnnen,

• Störung des Wettbewerbs,
• Behinderung des Wettbewerbs und
• Missbrauch der Marktmacht

vermieden wird, indem die

• Assimilierung bzw. Aneignung unserer Kunstwerke vereitelt wird,
• Entstehung von neuen (ungewollten) Monopolen verhindert wird und
• Vergrößerung von existerenden (ungewollten) Monopolen blockiert wird,

• ordentlich betreiben,
• verbessern und
• neugestalten,

sondern lediglich andere Kreationen und Innovationen kopieren,

• mitgestalten und
• mitgestalten können,

wenn ein Kunstwerk bereits

• integrierend ist und
• vertikal integrierend aufgeführt und reproduziert wird

und

• stattfinden lassen und
• stattfinden lassen können.

Außerdem sind oder besser gesagt wären die folgenden Formalitäten zu beachten:

• Ontoskop, auch fälschlicherweise Schlaufon genannt,
• OntoNetz, OntoGewebe, OntoVersum, auch fälschlicherweise Wolke, Kante, Nebel genannt,
• Ontoversum, auch fälschlicherweise Metaversum genannt,
• OntoBot, Ontologik, kreative und generative Bionik, auch fälschlicherweise Gesprä,chsroboter, generative KI genannt,
• Ontoloigsche Kunst, zeitgenössiche Kunst des 21. Jahrhunderts, auch fälschlicherweis physich-digitale (phygitale) Kunst genannt,
• etc.,

dass heißt grob geschätzt ein Betrag irgendwo im 4- oder 5-stelligen Billionen bzw. 1- oder 2-stelligen Trillionen Euro Bereich

• Vorteile für die Öffentlichkeit ja erst durch unsere kreativen Handlungen und unseren guten Willen ermöglicht werden und
• Vorteile gegenüber den Nachteilen, falls diese ürberhaupt gegeben sind, im Vergleich zu allen nachteiligen Alternativen, d.h. andere illegale Monopole, ürberwiegen

Na dann viel Spaß. :)

Willkommen im Ontoversum (Ov).

04.June.2023

20:35, 21:50, and 25:38 UTC+2
SOPR looked at details of © and competition laws

*** Sketching mode ***
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) looked at some details in relation to the

After we already discussed the

once again, we also looked at the Scène à faire==Scene to be made or Scene exclusion once again and concluded once again that all the other entities have to create a transformative and new expression of idea, but not merely a copy, an editing, or a modification of one of our original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use expressions of idea.

Our Ontologic System (OS) is presented and discussed as a work of art in the first place, specifically as

but not as a technology (e.g. system and platform), good (e.g. application and device), or service.
We only use technological terms to explain how far-reaching, powerful, and fascinating the

• cybernetic self-reflection, self-image (cyber selfie), or self-portrait, and
• cybernetic augmentation and extension,

of C.S. and our OS is and how our OS

in whole or in part and therefore should not be confused with another type of work, specifically such a one, which is not protected by the copyright.

Furthermore, a work of art has to be viewed like a mountain with skiing area in Aspen, Colorado, U.S.America, and the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), which means as an original and unique item, for which there is no need for an artificially realized duplicate.

Because of the refusal to comply with 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 December 2022, our SOPR is considering our ownership regulation, also called win-win policy, regarding the

which would also avoid some but not all of the legal issues with governments, cabinet governments, commissions, federal authorities, and shareholders. :)

Another consideration is to grow our brands by reversing the proposed approach completely from paying a fee for not having to use one of our labels to paying a fee for using one of our labels.
For example, a Microsoft Windows would have to be called Microsoft OS and an Apple iPhone would have to be called Apple Ontoscope or Apple Oscope.

All rights reserved.

See also the notes

By the way:

05.June.2023

01:38, 01:58, 02:47, 04:35, 18:20, 19:16, and 22:75 UTC+2
Apple still in LaLaLand #2

The company Apple has tried and is still trying to keep a low profile and remain inconspicuous, but we are observing it closely, because it has just been lurking and looking at what others and we are doing and what we are up to. Now the picture has already become pretty clear.

Apple is collaborating with banks since around the year 2013 in relation to its mobile payment system, digital wallet, credit card (launched on the 20th of August 2019), and high-yield savings account based on certain parts of our original and unique, copyrighted work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., and in relation to certain parts of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

Apple also developed a Mixed Reality Head-Mounted Display (MRHMD) of the type Video See-Through HMD (VSTHMD) and a related part of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) called xrOS by the media, which should stand for extended reality operating system, and filed related trademarks.
and visionOS by others
spatial computer

In addition, Apple tries to confuse the public about our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) once again, and also about the cybernetic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, self-augmentation, and self-extension of C.S. and our generative and creative Bionics.

Apple is completely aware of the goals and rules of our SOPR, but continues with looking for non-existing loopholes and violating the existing legal limits instead of beginning with communication and cooperation with our SOPR.

But we can assure all entities concerned that our SOPR will provide all items, which are common to all members and licensees of our SOPR, with our

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

Our SOPR is questioning the use of the terms Apple Reality, realityOS, and xrOS of the company Apple, because they are immiatating our original and unique Ontologic System, also abbreviated as OS and including our copyrighted expressions of idea, fields, and trademarks Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality©™ (NR), including our

and not only one of these models, and the next action of Apple to mimick C.S. and our corporation and to confuse the public in relation to our OS, inlcuding our NR , inlcuding our XMR or XR.
We have also significant evidences for another conspiracy and plot of Apple and at least another company, as we investigated and documented such illegal activities in the past. The busted trick is the simulation of an ordinary technological progress by mimicking C.S. and our corporation in the same way and stealing from them the same items at the same time.
Howsoever, due to certain activities of us, the whole matter might be solved in a much more profound way.

We do understand that

But our OS and our corporation are not the walled garden or illegal monopoly of Apple and we do not support the walled garden or illegal monopoly of Apple in regard to the Terms of Services (ToS) and the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, doubtlessly and definitely.
Therefore and if at all, then Apple only gets from our SOPR the legally required allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of our work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., if it completely complies to the

There is no more excuse, trick, and room to move. Checkmate. :)

See also the notes

21:12, 24:08, and 25:27 UTC+2
Who owns content generated by OntoBot?

Maybe we have discussed the matter already.

Firstly, a person, company, or other entity must

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically the copyright law and the competition law,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, 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),

specifically said entity must

• has said allowance and license and
• uses a legal set of resources provided on our Marketplace for Everything (MfE).

Secondly, a result of using our

must comply with all

This should be compared to the trademark law and copyright law, and held and ruled accordingly.
Note that a transformative and new expression of idea is not given and the fair dealing and fair use exclusion of the copyright law is not given, if the resulting work

Thirdly, the input or prompt must be an original and unique, personal expression of idea to be granted copyright protection.
A common phrase or action is not permitted and eligible to be protected, if it does not meet the requirements of

This should also be compared to the trademark law and copyright law, and held and ruled accordingly.

Similarly, an artist does not own the physical sound waves, which

(one can also view the waves like colours and voices like paints). But an artist owns, what she, he, or they are creating with it and at this point the basic rights, the copyrights, and the other rights of an artist are triggered, as usual.
For example, if a voice might be very characteristic and recognizable by the majority of the public, then an artist could already claim protection of her, his, or their performance and fight against any confusion of the public and any exploitation of her, his, or their oeuvre.
A right holder different than an artist cannot own the personal voice of said artist. It is exactly like the moral rights, which only exist as long as an artist exists.

A prominent example is a generated pop song, which sounds like an original artist and is monetized on a streaming platform or a social networking platform, because this

• true origin of said pop song and
• true action, intention, interpretation, etc. of said original artist,

and

A different prominent example is our OS with its OntoBot with its generative and creative Bionics, which is a transformative and new expression of idea and therefore the discussion about the ownership of a voice is irrelevant for the various reasons we already gave: Simply said, our OS is proper fair use of others works (see the past notes referenced below).
Our OS is even totally independent of an individual voice of an artist, because our OS is based on our Caliber/Calibre and hence on physics and hence on common sound waves.

Indeed, the thought coming from ethics in this context is interesting, but not clever enough to get around the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, because C.S. has gone even much deeper, wider, and further ahead and beyond.
We also would like to recommend to not confuse our creation with its performance and reproduction by C.S. and its performance and reproduction respectively utilization by plagiators.

We also would like to recall that only our SOPR is legal and able to protect ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) in this relation, but does not exploit them like other collecting societies, because it is only the collecting society for C.S..
It is a mutual interest that others protect our copyright and we protect others' copyrights in return.
But we would not deny it, if an artist or a right holder would like to get more services than the common membership in our SOPR, which already does a lot in this relation.

The matter only sounds complicated at first, but once it is handled in practice it all becomes quite obvious and straightforward.

See once again the notes and clarification

By the way:

06.June.2023

02:49, 07:56, 08:33, 09:47, 10:05, 11:51, and 21:25 UTC+2
Triple damages or no license, if at all
maybe Apple still in LaLaLand #3

What we still see so far is a continuation of the

and therefore does not allow to suggest that we have an arrangement or even an agreement with Apple or not.

Howsoever, without paying triple damage compensation our SOPR will not give the allowance and license for the performance and reproduciton of certain parts of our OS, if at all.
This also holds also for the company Apple, which is copying our Ontoscope (Os) with our Ontologic User Interface (OUI or OntoUI) respectively Multidimensional Multidomain Multilingual Multiparadigmatic Multimodal Multimedia User Interface (M⁶UI), Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA), New Photography with AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CV, CA, etc. based on our Evoos, and so much more, and sells it as iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Vision Pro, etc..
We also have what is wrongly called the iCloud with the basic features of our OS, the 3D modeler Freeform with our OntoBlender, and so much more.

In this relation, we would like to recall once again that it does not matter if Apple and Co. find single parts or integrated parts of our OS in prior art and mix or assemble them, so to say, because at this point they are effectively integrating them, which is an evidence, that does not avoid but shows the legally required causal link with our Ontologic System (OS) and proves that our OS with its integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) has been used as source of inspiration and blueprint without allowance, which constitutes an infringement of our copyright.
A very simple example for such a kind of copyright infringement is an unauthorized reproduction of a collection of recipes, which even does not include mixed or combined recipes respectively integrated recipes.

The trick to circumvent our copyright by allowing Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) of third parties instead of own ones does not work either, because C.S. decides what is preinstalled and executed on our reproductions of our Ontoscope. In fact, the Apple software, applications, devices, and services are only secondary property, like in the case of Microsoft and Windows.

We also directly had the impression that its improved autocorrect function of its keyboard engine of its User Interface (UI) of its Ontoscope variant iPhone is also based on our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our foundational and general

and our related Ontologic Application (OA), which learns the habits and the voice of its user and therefore has become our Multimodal User Interface (MUI).
But as we recalled in the note Apple still in LaLaLand of the 5th of June 2023 (yesterday), we motivate and support competiton on this basis, but also refer to the mandatory exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

See also the notes

The same holds for its portfolio of patents. All patents, which are based on a creation of us, like for example our Evoos and our OS, or a publication of us, are void.

The same holds for the fraudulent attempt of a plagiarist to redefine Mixed Reality (MR) on the basis of the blending theory and the blended space concept, which merely was done to confuse the public, but also proves that our Evoos and our OS are the true original and unique works of art and therefore the only truly legally relevant prior arts, as proven by listing the 4 factors ontology, topology, volatility, and agency, definitely and doubtlessly.
See the

• Caliber/Calibre,
• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), which adds the ends of pure reality and pure virtuality of the RVC to MR respectively defines the whole RVC as another type of MR, and also adds, or better said fusions our resulting XMR or XR with Simulated Reality (SR or SimR), Semantic Reality (SR or SemR), Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR), and all other realities to our New Reality (NR), including, or better said creating also what is (wrongly) called digital twin and Ontologic holon (Onton),
• OntoScope component, with which C.S. created the seamless transition over the RVC respectively change in our XMR or XR respectively adjust the amount of virtuality occupying a user, including the amount of virtual background, besides many other original and unique expression of ideas,
• Ontoverse, and
• Ontoscope.

See also our Ontoscope™ HMD and MultiGlasses™ Architecture in the adapted style of ski and motorcycle goggles, including

presented in the

• OntoLab Open Glasses #15 of the 10th of December 2016,

  which has nothing in common with the companies Zeiss and Apple, despite ... (for those, who still do not get it: Open Glasses Ontomizer in relation to Zeiss Cinemizer).

which proves once again, what Apple, Meta (Facebook), and Co. are copying and mimicking, even including the specification and the pricing model (3,500 U.S. Dollar), and why they said that the development took 7 years.
Do not be confused by at least one patent, which shows a video glasses as goggle, because it has to be questioned how Apple came to this form factor, perhaps by ordinary espionage, specifically monitoring our World Wide Web (WWW) surfing, as usual. Howsoever, Apple's thing was just only a video glasses, but no a Mixed Reality Head-Mounted Display (MRHMD), so this has been copied from us by Apple as well.

Since the presentation of the IPA plagiarism Siri, there is no need for clever (not really) tactics, low profile, and camouflage. Therefore, we are wondering, which Micky Mouse Apple has seen and is still seeing and why it has tried and is still trying that unsuccessful attempt. Eventually, it will pay for the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in the next future so or so.

Also note that we will not pay more than 23 Euro for a share of Apple (value 1st of January 2015), because

And we are considering 70% +30% to be as more than Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC). In fact, it would be better than nothing. Is not it? :)

By the way:

23:11 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

We already showed that our Ontologic Art (OA), including our Cyber-Physical Art (CPA), is our revolutionary art movement of the 21st century, which will change all kind of arts profoundly, completely, sustainably, and so on (see the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 29th of May 2023).
At first, we had the ArtWorks (AWs) based on

• Mediated Reality (MedR),

• integration of the arts with the blockchain technique and Non-Fungible Token (NFT),
• fusion of realities and called physical-digital AWs or simply phygital AWs, and
• creation of generative and creative Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL) respectively Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) beyond the earlier generative technologies,

• New Photography, and
• music instruments.

And now our whole OA movement is exploding and leading to whole spectrum of AWs in our Ontoverse (Ov), which were not possible before, and many other new developments, including exhibitions, museums, markets, and management.
In this relation, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is also becoming a much bigger collecting society than initially planned, because artists have now a huge interest, or better said no other way than to be on board at our SOPR in addition to others.

See also the notes

08.June.2023

10:14 UTC+2
Adobe still in LaLaLand

The company Adobe still thinks that our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., specifically our

• Ontoverse (Ov), which is including our
• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),

and what is misleadingly or wrongly called

• Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF),
• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Virtual Machine (VM) (P2P VM),
• Decentralized Web (DWeb), and Web 3 or Web3,
• Semantic Web,
• Metaverse,
• Federated Universe (Fediverse),
• Omniverse,
• Dataverse,
• etc.,

• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR),

and what is misleadingly or wrongly called

• Semantic Reality (SR or SemR),
• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR),
• etc.

are for free in whole or in part. No, like works of Adobe, the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not for free, but their performance and reproduction require the proper allowance and licensing by our SOPR.

Like any other entity, Adobe has to

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, 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 messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

10:43 UTC+2
Ontoscope Further steps

Due to our arts and industries leading Creation and Performance (C&P), and Reseach and Development (R&D) work of the last 7 years, we were able to

of our second Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display (VRHMD) of VRontier.

The completely functional and usable prototype of its second generation for developers will cost around in the

• 1,500 U.S. Dollar as VRHMD and
• 1,750 U.S. Dollar as MRHMD of the type Video See-Through HMD (VSTHMD)

and

• 2,000 U.S. Dollar as VRHMD and
• 2,250 U.S. Dollar as MRHMD of the type Video See-Through HMD (VSTHMD).

We also have already substituted the 1K variant by the 4K variant, which is the considerably cheaper variant for the mass market.

Please note that the given resolution xK means a horizontal pixel count of x Kilo pixels per eye.

We also have moved the second variant of the second VRHMD and MRHMD of the type VSTHMD of VRontier and our original and unique Ontoscope HMDs in our R&D pipeline, which is even more incredible, and made it ready for prototype provision and mass production.

Indeed, we have significant advantages concerning property, technology, and economy.

See also the messages

09.June.2023

09:31 and 12:21 UTC+2
Only our OS and SOPR for truth and trust in Ov

Ontologic System (OS)
Ontoverse (Ov)
(SOPR)

We quote a first report: "While tech companies are trying to tackle concerns about Ai-generated images and the integrity of digital media, experts in the field stress that these businesses will ultimately need to work with each other and the government to address the problem.
[...]
[The senior director at Adobe-led Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI)] agreed. "This is not a single company or a single government or a single individual in academia who can make this possible," he said. "We need everybody to participate.
[...]
"Some lawmakers are now calling for tech companies to address the problem. Vera Jourova, vice president of the European Commission, on Monday called for signatories of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation - a list that includes Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), Microsoft and TikTok - to "put in place technology to recognize such content and clearly label this to users.""

Comment
In the context of their illegal activities, those statements are completely wrong or even total Bulll$#!+, and were only said by representatives of companies to infringe the rights and steal the properties of C.S. and corporation. They all are just many years too late respectively are merely taking our OS as source of inspiration and blueprint, misleading the public, and fighting our inevitable SOPR.

We quote a second report: "A [European commissioner of the] European Union [(EU), who has led the charge on regulating digital platforms, but is also allowing illegal monopolies and even fraudulent and even serious criminal plagiarists to flourish and fighting innocent monopolies,] plans to confront Meta [Chief Executive Officer (]CEO[)] Mark Zuckerberg in an in-person meeting over reports this week that the company has failed to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material on its platform.
[...]
An investigation conducted jointly by [a financial news paper] and researchers at [a first university] and [a second university] found that [the] Meta-owned Instagram [social networking platform] has helped foster a robust marketplace for child pornography."

Comment
So much about the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation and so on, and also Meta (Facebook) and its founder and CEO once again, who still refuses to protect the children, but also the adults.

Over so many years, we have crystal clearly communicated why C.S. has created our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System with its basic properties, Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and also Ontoscope Components (OsC).
The legal situation is exactly like in the case of our Ontoscope (Os), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Intelligent Personal Agent (IPA), Distributed Leger Technology (DLT), OntoBot with our generative and creative Bionics, Ontologic Core (OntoCore or OC), Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase), Ontologic File System (OntoFS), OntoBlender, Ontoverse (Ov), New Reality (NR), and so on.
Therefore, all related activities in the field of truth and trust, which merely perform and reproduce the original and unique, personal, and copyright expressions of ideas created by C.S., including our

are considered copyright infringements and will get no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, because the usual Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR demand to use the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR with its UL, TMS, and much more.
We will not put the fox in charge of the henhouse, set the goat to care for the garden, and let common sense distort reality like an online encyclopedia.

So once again, governments, cabinet governments, commissions, federal authorities, institutes, companies, persons, and all other entities have to comply with

Not that way, ladies and gentlemen and all inbetween.

By the way:

• A law must not restrict a fundamental right.
• A law must not equalize another law.
• A law must not be a general suspicion.
• A law must not apply only to an entity or a minority.

• Ein Gesetz darf nicht ein Grundrecht einschränken.
• Ein Gesetz darf nicht ein anderes Gesetz egalisieren.
• Ein Gesetz darf nicht ein Generalverdacht sein.
• Ein Gesetz darf nicht nur für eine Entität oder eine Minderheit gelten.

14:38 UTC+2
Level 3 in California, but not in OntoLand

The company Mercedes-Benz Group has received the approval of the authorities in California, U.S.America, to let drive its cars with level 3 automation up to 60 km/h.
But the company still has no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique work of art titled and created by C.S., as well as other original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

© All rights reserved worldwide. :)

By the way:

16:10 UTC+2
Clarification

Truly competent persons do know that a chatbot is not an Expert System (ES), a Large Language Model (LLM) is not a DataBase Management System (DBMS), subsymbolic processing is not symbolic reasoning, and probability is not exactness, and due to these facts why the

What we do see actually is that fraudulent and even serious criminal entities repeat the Research and Development (R&D) of the 1980s and 1990s, and reinvent the fire and the wheel, including our Evoos and our OS, because they have no clue about what they are doing with the subsymbolic approaches. In fact, many of those morons learned to go to the potty alone at that time.
Two results of this R&D of the last century are the utilization of

This is followed by our approaches, including for example the validation and verification, including model checking, of all parts of a system, including Bionics.

But this actual reinvention and fraud camouflaged as a contemporary R&D process, an ordinary technological progress, and a technical benefit for the society would only end once again with our Evoos and our OS with its basic properties, OS Architecture, OntoBot, and other OSComponents, if we had not already exposed and busted them, as documented.

17:32 UTC+2
Too many morons and fraudsters in hightech

Do not fall prey to those fraudulent and even serious criminal entities in Silicon Valley, on Silicon Alley, and at other locations, because they have no competencies, no ideas, no visions, no rights, no properties, and no this and that in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
Virtually all of what they say and the lying press reports is nonsense to manipulate the public and take them for a ride.
We even do not comment that anymore, including the continued support of a so-called social networking platform despite its refusal to protect children since more than a decade, because we have done so and now let the courts speak respectively rule. As we said in the last past, anything else makes no sense anymore.

See also the Clarification of today and the other messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, specfically the ones publicated since around January 2023.

21:28 UTC+2
Ontoscope HMD original and fundamentally social

Unsurprisingly, the newest Heat-Mounted Displays (HMDs) of other companies have been proven to be Ontoscope HMD variants, or being more precise the second Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display (VRHMD) and Mixed Reality Head-Mounted Display (MRHMD) of the type Video See-Through Head-Mounted Display (VSTHMD) of VRontier, including our original and unique

and every Ontoscope is part of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoverse (Ov), including our exclusive and mandatory Social and Societal System (SSS) of our SOPR, which all have been stolen unsuccessfully by the company Meta (Facebook).

See the notes and message

By the way:

22:01 UTC+2
SoftBank still in LaLaLand

Because some fraudulent and even serious criminal kleptomanics still refuse to comply with gravity and the

we do make it very simple: generative and creative Bionics 'R' Us.

12.June.2023

04:44 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

Featherlight™

04:04, 04:44, and 05:00 UTC+2
Ontoscope Further steps

We looked a little around in the World Wide Web (WWW) and then in our stock of our OntoLab™, The Lab of Visions™, and concluded that 2 slightly improved variants of the second Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display (VRHMD) and Mixed Reality Head-Mounted Display (MRHMD) of the type Video See-Through Head-Mounted Display (VSTHMD) of VRontier™ in the (dual) 8K variant will pass the so-called visual Turing test as by-product to its overcome of eye fatigue and motion sickness respectively vertigo, nausea, and headache free properties due to our ingenious design respectively foundational Ontoscope Architecture (OsA) 2016:

• multi-view eye tracking,
• gesture control,
• etc.,

• varifocal display,
• foveated Video See-Through (VST) respectively foveated pass-through Augmented Reality (AR),
• etc.,

If we will find our soldering iron, then we can glue a completely functional and usable prototype together.
And then we will look for the next generation of our sunglasses-like VR and MR displays, including the Ontoscope MultiGlasses Architecture iRaiment Rayfarer™ and Cyberskin™, also known as MultiRay™-Ban Wayfarer and MultiOakley™ Frogskin.

See also the Ontoscope Further steps of the 8th of June 2023.

It is always better to be a subsidiary of us. :)

23:56 UTC+2
In case the FTC wants to be up to date this time

U.S.American Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Display experts and industry observers are critical of the acquisitions:
"This continues a trend of companies giants like Meta, Apple, Google, [Microsoft,] and others, including Snap and Vuzix, buying up the supply chain for Augmented Realtiy (AR) components. This buying up of fledgling technologies is likely to hinder the long-term development of the AR market."
"[A display expert and industry observer] fears that buying up technological know-how will lead to monopolization, making it increasingly difficult for smaller hardware manufacturers [...] to compete in the market through innovation. According to [an analyst in our field of eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR)], the acquisition will have no impact on the startups' current products. But what about future products? Manufacturers will likely have to look for new optics partners [if they are able to find one with the required Intellectual Properties (IPs), which obviously is bought away]."
"There are two reasons for such acquisitions: [A company] plans so firmly with a technology that buying out the manufacturer is more cost-effective than contracting it out. And other companies no longer have direct access to the technology, so would have to work with [a comany] or search for alternatives.
Sufferers of these business practices could be mid-sized companies that are not specialized enough or too expensive to acquire, but whose products cannot compete with those of the large tech corporations, precisely because they also block access to relevant technology."
"Other tech groups such as [the ones listed above] are also currently buying up VR and AR startups to secure upcoming key technologies. Some industry observers see this as an anti-competitive approach that excludes smaller companies from the market at an early stage."
"Technically, [a first company] didn't "buy" [a second company], they bought exclusivity to all of [a second company]'s production of MicroLEDs for use in displays. At the time it was reported that [a first company] did it this way to avoid the regulatory hurdles of a buyout. No matter what it is called, [a second company] stopped all work with other companies[.]
[...]
One thing is for sure, the big company buying spree is not over as the big companies try to corner the future of the VR/AR/MR market. [...]"

Comment
Indeed, we are observing this much longer and in all fields. We can even see that they are buying different solutions, so that competitors even have no alternative, for example Liquid Crystal Holographic Optical Element (LCHOE) and Alvarez lens design in case of varifocal displays for HMDs. Really clever (not really).
In this specific field we even have evidence for espionage and the usual stealing from our websites, which makes it even more nasty, because all these companies dependent on our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov) and Ontoscope (Os), including all relevant XMR variants.
But we are already made decisions and began to implement consequences, and we are also considering e.g. 70% + 30% ownership regulation and even skiing in Aspen with Sherman.

We are also observing that they are supported by the European Commission (EC) and member states of the European Union (EU), specifically education and research institutes, Research and Development (R&D) companies, and also pure and partial State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) all payed by taxpayers' money in whole or in part to a very large extent, which already led to decisions and consequences.

Last but not least, we are observing more and more dirty tricks to circumvent the authorities, commissions, regulators, etc. by

In a case related to the latter trick, the F.R.German market regulator merely said that they have no mandate by law to handle that circumvention of its takeover prohibition. But we argue that they do have means by other laws, which prohibit the circumvention of a federal prohibition no matter how said prohibition took place.

14.June.2023

01:00 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

We already showed again and again through the years that all advanced Dialog Systems (DSs or DiaSs), including Dialogue Management System (DMS), Conversational System (CS or ConS), including Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), including (voice-based) virtual assistants, Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs), etc., including Apple Siri, Alphabet Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana, Samsung Bixby, etc. are based on our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) (see also for example the Clarification of the 9th of June 2023).
Now, it can be proven even more easily at the courts, so that no debate and dispute about this fact is reasonable anymore.

Interestingly, the companies

which leads us directly to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR with the

which are common to all members and licensees of our SOPR.

06:32 UTC+2
No overreaching regulation of Bionics

We quote a report, which is about the legislation of Bionics: "[...]
Artificial intelligence, that is capable of suppressing people is to be banned altogether. This includes, among other things, "social scoring" systems, that evaluate people's behavior, the automated recognition of emotions, for example when interrogating suspects - as well as blanket surveillance with biometric real-time data in public.
[...]"

Comment
It should always

For example, our work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. is based on emotions and their recognition as well.
Therefore, the sentence must be: Bionics e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, CV, CA, CAS, etc.), that is capable of suppressing people is to be banned altogether. This includes, among other things, "social scoring" systems, that evaluate people's behavior, interrogations of suspects, that uses automated recognition of emotions - as well as blanket surveillance with biometric real-time data in public.

15.June.2023

08:37 UTC+2
EU Bionics Act needing revision by our SOPR

The so-called Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) of the European Union (EU), which should be called Bionics Act or something more specific to the true problem, is

• human-centric business philosophy and technology in general and
• Ontologic System (OS) with its universal foundations, basic properties, and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), including our Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), in particular

on the one hand and

We also have to repeat that a new act was not needed at all, because most if not all of the problem areas are already regulated by laws, which should have been revised instead.
For example,

But it is a start, which provides a ground to make it correct.

08:38 UTC+2
42% of CEOs absolutely no clue about Bionics

According to a survey conducted under Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of diverse businesses 42% of them "are seriously worried that artificial intelligence could pose an existential threat to humanity in the not-too-distant future".

But we only can see 2 points once again:

• CEOs have absolutely no clue about the field of Bionics and its various subfields, including for example Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evotionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc., but do know that they have to go with the trend to be competitive and are trying to shape the playing field to their interests, or
• CEOs have no legal control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and therefore are taking other strategies beyond ordinary competition.

But even under those entities, who have a certain level of knowledge, we are observing a significant ratio of incompetence.

Have we not already closed that debate some days ago? Obviously, some opportunistic entities and bad actors do not get it that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is in charge.

16.June.2023

03:23 and 12:05 UTC+2
Generative and creative Bionics not core business

We would like to recall that our generative and creative Bionics is not a core business of any entity in relation to competition and we only motivated to compete on the basis of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics, and other certain parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S.. But this is no call for or support of any conspiracy and plot against us, shilding us from the public, meddling in our customer relationships, and so on.

Also note that Dialog Systems (DSs or DiaSs), including Dialogue Management System (DMS), Conversational System (CS or ConS), including Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), including (voice-based) virtual assistants, Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs), etc. are no legal loophole for continuing with the illegal scrapping off trick, which does not work at all, as we have already worked out for lawyers and judges, and other illegal fraud methods.

We are not aware of any prior art, which is about the utilization of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for the realization of a conversational control or conversation-based control, conversational assistant or conversation-based assistant, or conversational agent or conversation-based agent.
We are also not sure about the existence of any prior art, which is about generative ANN.
But we are quite sure that no prior art exists, which is about conversational generative and creative ANN.

We also do not know any prior art, which is about probabilistic search in general and ANN-based search in particular, which again searches, estimates, or calculates the probability of the next word or sentence on the basis of a(n iterative and incremental) Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process and PDCA multi-loop, which is also known as the cyclic control loop of the field of Total Quality Management (TQM).
We only know for sure that our Evoos and our OntoBot have the basic features, the integrations of these features, and the applications of these integrations, and also that others copied them with out reference or even allowance.

See also the

• Natural Language Processing,
• Intelligent/Cognitive Agent,
• Intelligent/Cognitive Interface,
• Automation,
• Human Simulation/Holomer, and
• Algorithmic/Generative/Evolutionary/Organic ... Art/Science

with all relevant keywords and proves the copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation.

By the way:

03:55 and 22:21 UTC+2
Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well

*** Revision - some better formulation ***
We always said and explained in detail that what is wrongly called Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) is part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), like in many other cases (see also for example the Clarification of the 18th of January 2020 and 26th of January 2020).
In the following, we list some of the most relevant events and developments to show the facts and our point of view.

The companies IBM and DEC provided time-sharing in the 1960s, which became popularized via the Remote Job Entry (RJE) approach.
The company IBM developed its first Virtual Machine (VM) in 1972.
The cloud symbol is (said to be) used the first time in 1977.

In fact, the first use of the cloud metaphor to denote virtualized services was introduced in 1993, when the companies General Magic and AT&T presented their (paired) technologies

which is the result of an Apple Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) project in 1989 and the spin-off General Magic (created in May 1990) with its Magic Communicating Applications Platform, also known as Magic Cap Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) operating system (os) (announced on the 8th of February 1993 and initially released on the 28th of September 1994) (simple mobile agents interact with services, also known as places run on server clusters, which host the cloud of the Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP) language Telescript (released in 1996), a device is a place), and the mobile devices respectively PDAs Sony Magic Link and Motorola Envoy.
The expression cloud computing became more widely known in 1996, when the company Compaq Computer Corporation presented a business plan for future computing and the Internet to increase sales with "cloud computing-enabled applications".
It failed. Correspondingly, we call it Cloud Computing of the first generation or simply Cloud 1.0 (CC 1.0).

Around 1999 to 2004, several companies, like for example

tried to steal our Evoos with a remake of the Cloud 1.0 on the basis of the fields of

It failed, too. Correspondingly, we call it Cloud Computing of the second generation or simply Cloud 2.0 (CC 2.0), but only for better understanding.

Since 2005, even more companies are trying to steal our Evoos and its further development or next generation, which is our OS, with a remake of the Cloud 2.0 on the basis of our

and what is misleadingly or wrongly called

But this time it succeeded, or better said our success story is still succeeding, because C.S. showed how to do it once again, like in the cases of the

as usual. Correspondingly, we call it Cloud Computing of the third generation or simply Cloud 3.0 (CC 3.0), but only for better understanding.

CC 1.0 and foundations of GC and CC 2.0

GC, CC 1.0, and CC 2.0, and related technologies, goods, and services

CC 2.0, CC 3.0, edge computing, hybrids (e.g. fog computing and multi-clouds), and other system architectures for computing are based on our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA)., which is a part of our original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use masterpiece titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..

This is the next example, which also shows once again that the copyright for the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. has been obtained and granted even long before a seamless technological development, an ordinary technological progress, or a technical benefit for the society could have been recognized and realized by other entities at all. Perverting the laws on this basis and on the basis of other exclusions of the copyright will not happen and therefore the moral rights, including the exclusive rights of

have been confirmed once again.

For sure, this has legal consequences, because of the continuation of fraudulent and even serious criminal activities on the one hand and the provision of significant evidences, causal links, etc. on the other hand, and the obvious possibility to draw a white, yellow, or red line between the original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S. on the one side and the prior art and the plagiarisms on the other side.
And there is no cherry picking.

17.June.2023

23:55 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We thought about a device over the last days and today fully maxed the idea out, adapted a technology from a different field or field of application for another technology, and developed a first new device and a second new device, which comprises the first new device as a component. We think the result is more crazy than ordinary.

18.June.2023

00:55 and 02:09 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

While thinking about our newest devices (see the Further steps of the 17th of June 2023 yesterday), we began to think also about another foundational problem and technological solution, and ways of improvements to make the solution a product.
In a first step, we improved 2 technologies and developed 2 new devices, which can be combined and integrated.
In a second step, we designed new devices, which should improve the overall solution even more.

We have solved an older general problem and a newer general problem, which obviously and surprisingly others are not able to do, by doing 2 things. We are absolutely sure that our solution will become the standard, because it is so much better and therefore truly works.

14:58 UTC+2
Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, nChain scam busted

For sure, Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and the inventor of the so-called Bitcoin technology, as proven multiple times by us with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System with its basic properties, OntoFS component and included Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), and Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) resp. Ontoverse (Ov) and included Universal Ledger (UL).

Now the scam continues with some kind of a

We quote several video titles:

Some more informations:

Can our fans and readers see the pattern?

We are taking back our Cloud 3.0 and guarantee to cut communications of every moron in that field and in other fields worldwide, no matter if it is wired, cable, telegraph, wireless, satellite, bush drum, smoke signal, grapevine, or whatsoever.

Of course, nChain, Dfinity, Algorand, Switchboard, Oraichain, and the other crypto crap are blacklisted.

By the way:

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

of our OntoBank will be located in Hong Kong or outside the P.R.China.
Illegal crypto exchanges will be blacklisted, blocked, and held responsible for all illegal activities by various measures.

20.June.2023

12:36 UTC+2
Clarification
OntoBot includes chatbot and much more

"[T]he core function of a chatbot is to mimic a human conversationalist" and therefore a chatbot is not operational and therefore it is not generative and creative Bionics, Machine Translation (MT), text processing and text writing, composing, or authoring, image processing and image generation, music composing, voice imitation, Robotic Automation (RA), and so on.

In total contrast, our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) includes all foundations and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) includes all fields, in both cases either by creation or integration, which makes them versatile, and therefore calling the related part of our Evoos and our OntoBot a chatbot or otherwise constitutes a copyright infringement.

See also for example the note generative and creative Bionics not core business of the 16th of June 2023.

21.June.2023

02:05 UTC+2
Style of Speed Further steps

We have solved 1 general problem and improved some solutions for general problems with a first specific type of vehicle by integrating a of a secong specific type of vehicle, which makes it more safe and practicable.

04:47 UTC+2
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #31.6.3

We were able to develop the Superbolt #6 N.N. (designation related to General Gravity™, Hover™, etc.) of the Ontonics Blitz Fund I considerably by an unexpected development.

04:47 UTC+2
Ontonics Blitz Fund II #5

We have added one new Superbolt to the Blitz Fund II, which might be splitted into 2 Superbolts.
Only 1 or 2 slots of our Blitz Fund II are left to be assigned, which demands for considerations about our Blitz Fund III.

11:21 and 23:20 UTC+2
SOPR revised golden power regulation

*** Work in progress - better order and wording; last thought ***

We already introduced the new Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) (e.g. public tender) in wise foresight and as part of the reaction on the rejection of the very elegant transition phase proposed by us.

The so-called

• Chinese win-win policy,
• American win-win policy, and
• European win-win policy,

regarding freedoms and limitations, legislations, infrastructures, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and State-Affiliated Enterprises (SAEs), cliques, etc., allows our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) to join forces with other companies, which depend on the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., without loosing any freedom and control.
But specifically said win-win policy has some issues, which we could not resolve at first.

One issue is that we think that 51% of the voting shares is much too low and that 100% of the voting shares is much too high. But we were not sure and thought about the pro and cons of others and us, including the

Eventually, we concluded once again that 70% of the voting shares (OS and importance of and dependencies on it 70% and core businesses 30%) is correct and legal.

The last open point to decide in relation to joint ventures is if

should be separated or or not, though this would not establish diversity.

Another issue is that we would have to take over virtually every company, which depends on the original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S.. But this is not in the interest of many other entities and us.
And then we remembered that the so-called golden power regulation of countries, like for example Italy, does not always have to be applied, that is in all cases.

Correspondingly, we revised the ownership regulation by aligning it with the golden power regulation. In this way, the set of companies affected is narrowed down to the ones, that either

which reflects to some extent the criteria of the Digital Market Act of the European Union (EU), or

As the result of this alignment, the

The ToS with LM and MCM of our SOPR also comprise the regulations for the

This leads to the questions about the relations and dependences between these regulations.
For example, the payment of damages only compensates infringements of rights, but it does not give the allowance to continue with infringements and does not provide the right to get a license for AWs and IPs protected by the rights, which have been infringed.
But the payment of damages has influence on the value of a share and the price, which has to be payed for a share, because the missed follow-up opportunities related to selling shares of our corporation should be compensated by the damages as well.
Related considerations include the options to pay damages for the

though these 2 do not reflect the development at the stock markets and therefore the whole missed follow-up opportunities.

Howsoever, as we already said in the note SOPR is FRANDAC, etc., but not greedy of the 17th of May 2023, C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR, are independent legal entities. Our SOPR with its infrastructure should also become an independent legal entity and its spin-off is already planned.

Furthermore, the golden power regulation does not change the status of a new joint venture as an Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Provider (OAOSP) or an Main Contractor (MC) of our SOPR.
Therefore, a new joint venture as an

like every other entity to comply with various laws, which requires to keep the new joint venture separated from our SOPR with its infrastructures among other demands and measures.

Independent OAOSPs provide their OAOS on the OAOS Platform (OAOSP) of our SOPR.
golden power regulation still required with OAOSP of SOPR or alternative approach and solution?

Either meet us at the bar or at the court. :)

23:26 UTC+2
Ah, what ...? Unteachability is bliss?

Despite we have already said everything and ended the debate (see the note Debate about Bionics regulation over for us of the 30th of May 2023 and the messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims cited therein), they are still discussing the matter and even begin to bend the basic rights.

We quote a report, which is about the regulation of Bionics included in the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and proposed regulations of Bionics of governments: "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a broad, open-ended plan for regulating artificial intelligence [...], describing AI as an unprecedented challenge for Congress that effectively has policymakers "starting from scratch."
The plan [...] will begin with at least nine panels to identify and discuss the hardest questions that regulations on AI will have to answer, including how to protect workers, national security and copyright and to defend against "doomsday scenarios." The panels will be composed of experts from industry, academia and civil society [...].
[...]
"f we can put this together in a very serious way, I think the rest of the world will follow and we can set the direction of how we ought to go in AI, because I don't think any of the existing proposals have captured that imagination," Schumer said, reflecting on other recent proposals such as the European Union's draft AI Act, which last week was approved by the European Parliament.

In the wake of ChatGPT's our viral success with our original and unique Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and generative and creative Bionics, Silicon Valley has raced to develop and deploy a new crop of generative AI tools that can produce images and writing almost instantly, with the potential to change how people work, shop and interact with each other. But these same tools have also raised concerns for their potential to make factual errors, spread misinformation and perpetuate biases, among other issues.
In contrast to the fast pace of AI advancements, Schumer has stressed the importance of a deliberate approach, focusing on getting lawmakers acquainted with the basic facts of the technology and the issues it raises before seeking to legislate. [...]
[...]
But he described AI as a novel issue for which Congress lacks a guide.
"It's not like labor, or healthcare, or defense, where Congress has had a long history we can work off of," he said. "Experts aren't even sure which questions policymakers should be asking. In many ways, we're starting from scratch."
Schumer described his plan as laying "a foundation for AI policy" [...].
[...] Formally unveiling the framework on Wednesday, Schumer said any legislation on AI should be geared toward facilitating innovation before addressing risks to national security or democratic governance.
"Innovation first," Schumer said, "but with security, accountability, [democratic] foundations and explainability."
[...]
Schumer's remarks were restrained in calling for any specific proposals. At one point, he acknowledged that a consensus may even emerge that recommends against major government intervention on the technology.
But he was clear on one point: "We do - we do - need to require companies to develop a system where in simple and understandable terms users understand why the system produced a particular answer, and where that answer came from."
[...]"

Comment
We have already proven that they are not starting from scratch, because they have taken our copyrighted works and related publicatons as sources of inspiration and blueprints and copied them without allowance and referencing for their first drafts (see once again the Clarification #1 of the 16th of April 2023).
We also simply repeat once again that our SOPR does already exists, is the best one, the only one, and the governing one with the ToS, because we have already the original and unique masterpieces with everything for providing safety, security, etc., the OS, the control, and so on.

We think that the so-called Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) of the European Union (EU) is already a wide reaching regulation. But we also said that its initial version will not be its last version.

Furthermore, statements like for example "AI as a novel issue for which Congress lacks a guide" and "Experts aren't even sure" prove once again the copyright protection for our original and unique, visionary and unbelievable, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use masterpiece titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., including our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos).

The copyright protection for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are cast in stone since the years 1999 and 2006. Therefore, any regulation regarding our transformative and new expression of idea presented, performed, and discussed with our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and our generative and creative Bionics, also wrongly called generative AI, conversational control, conversation-based assistant, or conversational agent, also wrongly called chatbot, etc., and so on, is void.
Maybe a revision of the copyright law would change the legal situation, though we doubt that this could be done, because this

{list to be corrected and ordered} Some few of the many fields already stolen from us:

We already said that the rule-based law and order environment is already the compromise and the level playing field, and the laws have limits, or said in other words they can discuss forever but not democratize, not expropriate, not this and that, and definitely not blah blah blah (see once again for example No chance to expropriate or democratize our OS of the 2nd of April 2023 and also the other related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims). Keep in mind, where this all came from and that consequences will also come from the same true origin.

Therefore, one of the only or even the only viable options is to keep it pure and straight, which means only C.S. as the creator is allowed to perform and reproduce, which is supported by the law and the way it always should be on the on hand and should be enforced by putting law into action on the other hand.

22.June.2023

13:05, 13:39, and 15:11 UTC+2
Clarification OS 'R' Us

Chinese companies have to comply with

and give back our Cloud 3.0, including Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL) respectively Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.), like every other entity. OS 'R' Us and therefore Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us (see also Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well of the 16th of June 2023), generative and creative Bionics 'R' Us (see also SoftBank still in LaLaLand of the 9th of June 2023 and Generative and creative Bionics not core business of the 16th of June 2023), and the rest of our OS 'R' Us, and also no debate about the matter. Better believe the other fact that we have a lot of options to enforce all of our rights on the planet Earth, like for example, blacklisting, 300% penalty, blocking of capabilities and opportunities, arresting managers when travelling abroad, etc., etc., etc..

And we already do know that our friends in the P.R.China, in India, and in every other country will be happy with the way we do handle and get all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

The rule-based law and order environment is effective since decades.
Please come down on Earth once again and stop being annoying and bugging us, because our OntoLand is not the LaLaLand, and as long as the copyright and the patent right are effective, there is no change in this status quo.

A simple implications is that only Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on the

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

are allowed.

The anti-revenue avoidance regulation in the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR prohibits and counteracts price dumping or predatory pricing, subvention, for free, etc., because one part of our royalties is our fair share of the revenue generated with the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS. And we do know how much technologies, goods, and services cost.

The open tender regulation is for the Main Contractors (MCs) for the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and we already said that we will not pay moon prices for technologies, goods, and services. But we will also make sure that the MCs' finances are sustainable.

In case of others the fear that Coud Computing Providers (CCPs) or Coud Service Providers (CSPs), or correctly said Space Computing Providers (SCPs) or Space Service Providers (SCPs) might be able to offer contracts below the rates of their competitors is just not given, because only our SOPR with the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Providers (OAOSPs) are allowed in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), and in case of our corporation with our SOPR the fear is just not given, because we have to avoid any infringement of the competition rules and it is our exclusive right to decide if and how we commercialize (e.g. monetize) the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. or if we give them away for free in whole or in part.

Please keep in mind that we are not Huawei, ZTE, Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, TikTok, China Telecom, etc., but just ordinary Inc., LLC., etc..
See also the notes

and the notes related and cited therein.

By the way:

conversation with and
• offer to

C.S. and our corporation by the U.S.American government at all, which are essential for any compromise, deal, agreement, or whatsoever, and would allow to consider and talk about such a matter in general, though our SOPR is the best, one and only central entity or actor, and is neutral, and so on in particular.
Can it be that we have here one or more general problems? Own fault and problem, if persons only talk with the wrong persons all the time.
Howsoever, we will not discuss everything about what we think and do in public.

23.June.2023

07:29 UTC+2
SOPR introduced Indian win-win policy

Our SOPR added to the ownership regulation of the Terms of Services (ToS) the Indian win-win policy, which was already effective inofficially, but has now become official herewith.

07:57 and 15:51 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We recalled some few basic theories and approaches, then looked into our basic block box, and eventually sticked together our new Q-thruster, which has very interesting properties and is absolutely scientifically sound and proven. :D

In the next step we designed an improved version of this new Q-thruster and a Q-lifter, which does not generate sufficiently high force to lift itself (untethered), which means no anti-gravity (for now).

While reviewing our initial design of the Q-lifter, we designed another version, which is not ideal, which again means still no anti-gravity, but might lift itself in certain conditions of operation.

See the related Further steps of the

28.June.2023

11:53 and 17:15 UTC+2
SOPR confirmed schedule for transition

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has confirmed the schedule for the transition to the

The introduction of the official digital currencies cures several significant social, societal, political, legal, and economical issues, which came with

in relation to

Indeed, most basic elements required for the realization of official digital currencies do already exist, including

But

A simple implication is that digital currencies are virtually already accepted, which is another huge success story of us.

Therefore, our SOPR has discussed and decided to establish our OFinS with its OntoBank and to collaborate with the central banks, federal reserve systems, and other monetary authorities for restoring the rule-based law and order environment in the financial industry as a win-win for all entities concerned.
Simply said, forget Pay Pal, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Amazon Pay, Microsoft, Samsung, Huawei, Alibaba, and Co. Pay, because they all have infringed said rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and have to use the related exclusive and mandatory infrastructures with their set of fundamental

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

provided by our OntoBank with its

The same holds for related developments by the member states of the European Union (EU) and other countries, banks, and other entities.

Please note that an official currency is never for free, because one most have a monetary authority, a means representing a standardized, unforgeable, and thererfore trusted barter object, and so on, which are financed by taxes and in other ways.
The official digital currencies will save a lot of these costs, specifically for the production, handling, storing, etc. of physical coins and bills, and much more.

In this relation, we have to note that larger banks, bank associations, and other entities are playing foul, as usual, by collaborating with payment system service providers, despite that they are attacking their core bank businesses, and trying solo efforts to keep us away and push us out of the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), despite that we are protecting their core bank businesses, though that will not happen anyway, for sure.

So much about competences once again.

29.June.2023

12:19, 13:14, 14:19, and 15:01 UTC+2
Databricks still in LaLaLand

We already said in the Further steps, Ontologic Net Further steps of the 7th of December 2022 (see the last 2 sections) that the company Databricks gets no license due to its trick with the Resilient Distributed Dataset (RDD) and the creation and support of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects.
With its latest support for illegal Large Language Models (LLMs) and FOSS based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS) its copyright infringement and therefore the legal situation has become even more clear.
Another reason why our Cloud 3.0 is part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

We quote a report, which is about Databricks and includes an interview of its Chief Executive Officer (CEO): "[...]
[...]
[Graphics:] All the brain power[,] science[,] data
[Graphics:] The only open, unified platform for data management[,] business analytics[,] machine learning
[...]
[Ali Ghodsi:] [...] But believe it or not, the world of data and AI have been separated. So, big, large enterprises they would have to buy separate data software called data warehousing and separate AI software called data lakes to make this work. And what Databricks has done [as being] able to unify these two so that your data and your AI in one place and that's all the rage now. Everyone wants data and AI together, because everybody wants to build their own, you know, generative models, large language models, and these kinds of things.
[Moderator:] [...] Why you're able to do this and allow smaller companies and big companies to use their own data to train AI?
[Ali Ghodsi:] It's [the] historical roots of this technology. So this data warehousing technology has its root in what [the company] Oracle used to do and there was no AI related to it. The AI technology came out of companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter. And the folks that started Databricks [in 2013], my colleagues [(?) and] co-founders, we were researchers at [University of California (]U.C.[)], Berkeley, which receives a lot of its funding in the, you know, 2000s from Silicon Valley tech company, and we got to see what they were doing in the early days. And what they were doing is they were combining the data with the AI and that's how we're doing these magical things. So we want to simply just take that, democratize it, bring it to everyone. So it's just, you know, we had slightly different roots: We were sort of rooted in Silicon Valley tech, where this old school data warehousing comes from, [begins to stumbling] you know, much more older technologies, that [...] factory have invented.
[Moderator:] How many of the customers, that you serve [...] have enough and the quality of data required to train the AI systems that they want to give their customers the right products or the right services? [...]
[Ali Ghodsi:] They have the data. [...] And then we have the cloud vendors, the 3 cloud vendors, Amazon, Microsoft, [and] Google have been saying for a long time "Hey, everybody has moved to the cloud. Please give us your data." [...] So they have the data. The problem they have are twofold: One it's a people, and organization, and process problem. How do you get the existing organization [] to revamp it and reorganize it so that they can embrace AI. The second problem they have is how do you get the technology to be much more modern so that we can do these kinds of things, so we can ask questions about the future and not just these data warehousing backwards looking questions, where we can ask what was [...] last week, but rather what's going to be next week.""]

Comment
Obviously, the report also includes the usual fraudulent nonsense, but also some interesting points.

Also note that the company Oracle already has this copied from us several years ago as well in 2 ways, as we have documented in the related Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 24th of February 2018 and the Clarification of the 18th of January 2020 (section Cloud computing), and discussed in relation to our SOPR.

In this relation, we repeat the statement "there was no AI related to it".

What we do know, you know, is that they all came after the publication of our Evoos in the mid of December of 1999 and our OS in the end of October of 2006, which have already been stolen to some extent by universities in California at this time by ordinary espionage, conspiracy, and plot. But sadly to say they have not stolen our generative and creative Bionics, which was only stolen many years later after we explained how it works on this website of OntomaX.
:þ ©
Databricks was founded in 2013 and those companies named by its CEO have already been convicted of taking our Evoos and our OS as source of inspiration and blueprint as well, which constitutes an infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation.
Eventually, it is not the only open, unified platform for data management, business analytists, Machine Learning (ML), etc., but only one of the many illegal plagiarisms of the original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and one of the usual fraudulent and even serious criminal companies supported by other usual fraudulent and even serious criminal companies, which effectively make them even a group of serious criminal actors.
Thank you very much for providing more legal ammunition by clearly saying that no prior art exists.

See also the note

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the company Databricks: "[...]

History
Databricks grew out of the AMPLab project at University of California, Berkeley that was involved in making Apache Spark, an open-source distributed computing framework built atop Scala. [...]
In November 2017, the company was announced as a first-party service on Microsoft Azure via the integration Azure Databricks.[5]
In June 2020, Databricks acquired Redash, an open-source tool designed to help data scientists and analysts visualize and build interactive dashboards of their data.[6]
In February 2021 together with Google Cloud, Databricks provided integration with the Google Kubernetes Engine and Google's BigQuery platform.[7] [...]
In August 2021, Databricks finished their eighth round of funding by raising $1.6 billion and valuing the company at $38 billion.[10]
In October 2021, Databricks made its second acquisition of German no-code company 8080 Labs. 8080 Labs makes bamboolib, a data exploration tool that does not require coding to use.[11]
In response to the popularity of OpenAI's ChatGPT, in March 2023, the company introduced an open-source language model, named Dolly after Dolly the sheep, that developers could use to create their own chatbots. Their model uses fewer parameters to produce similar results as ChatGPT, but Databricks had not released formal benchmark tests to show whether its bot actually matched the performance of ChatGPT.[12][13][14]
Databricks acquired data security startup Okera in May 2023 to extend its data governance capabilities.[15] The next month, it acquired an open-source generative AI startup MosaicML for $1.4 billion.[16][17]

Funding
In September 2013, Databricks announced it raised $13.9 million from Andreessen Horowitz and said it aimed to offer an alternative to Google's MapReduce system.[18][19] Microsoft was a noted investor of Databricks in 2019, participating in the company's Series E at an unspecified amount.[20][21] The company has raised $1.9 billion in funding, including a $1 billion Series G led by Franklin Templeton at a $28 billion post-money valuation in February 2021. Other investors include Amazon Web Services, CapitalG (a growth equity firm under Alphabet Inc.) and Salesforce Ventures.[9 [Databricks Raises $1 Billion At $28 Billion Valuation, With The Cloud's Elite All Buying In. [2nd of February 2021]]]

Products
[...]
The company has also created Delta Lake, MLflow and Koalas, open source projects that span data engineering, data science and machine learning.[36] In addition to building the Databricks platform, the company has co-organized massive open online courses about Spark[37] and a conference for the Spark community called the Data + AI Summit,[38] formerly known as Spark Summit."

Comment
What should we say? In which parallel universe and alternative reality are they all living?
So much about another OntoClone and other unwanted activities.

Please also note that customers, who train their Machine Learning Models (MLMs), Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs), and other Bionic models by using their own data, are still needing the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. in many and most recent use case, because neither using illegal FOSS nor proprietary plagiarisms provide them legal certainty.

By the way:

• no mimicking of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR,
• no negotiation about the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• no discussion of laws,
• no debate about the reconstitution, restoration, and restitution of the infringed rights, stolen properties, damaged reputations, harmed integrities, frustrated momenta, and thwarted follow-up opportunities of C.S. and our corporation through the
  • payment of triple damage compensations,
  • application of the golden power regulation in relation to the acquisition of 51 to 100% of the voting shares respectively establishment of new corporations as joint ventures, and
  • conduction of other reasonable actions,
• no FOSS,
• no violation of the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), specifically the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR with what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, Marketplace for Everything (MfE), Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Platform (OAOSP), Ontologic Financial System (OFinS), etc.,
• and so on,

or we will go skiing in Aspen together with Sherman and Goldsmith, which we will already do in F.R.Germany together with Moral Rights in the next future.