02:13 an 16:40 UTC+2
Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Co. busted again

After they have stolen an essential part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), which could be described as some kind of a skeleton or functional and operational multimodal core, which again is also included in our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS), which again is the version of Evoos further created, refined, and developed, they continued with

and now turned to improvements of their illegal partial plagiarisms in relation to truth, trust, and trustworthiness, and hence some kind of grounding and belief system. But obviously, in this way they copied other expressions of ideas created, presented, and discussed with our OS without adding an own, new, personal expression of idea, showing fair dealing and fair use, or any other legal action.

In fact, we already do have as basic properties

which all have been selected, composed, connected, and integrated in our

by C.S..

See also for example the clarifications and notes

But the latest round of stealing will neither improve their

and we even wonder if they are only doing some more or less irrelevant activities to mislead and confuse the public even more about the true origin of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and the achievements of our corporation.

As we always say, one cannot steal said AWs and IPs solely created, designed, and owned by C.S..

As we said recently, their activities have become permanent infringements of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation. No law, no competition, no this and that is respected anymore, just a culture of lawlessness and war against us and the rest of the societies.

03:50 and 17:33, and 19:11 UTC+2
Geoffrey Hinton has become the next one

Confirmed that he failed with Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and C.S. succeeded with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS), which were stolen in parts by him, some of his students, and others at the companies Alphabet (Google) and OpenAI.

Note that without the renaissance of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc. started with our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., as crystal clearly proven and documented, nobody would have looked at ANN and the other fields seriously, as confirmed by Hinton indirectly as well, or even would have known him and gave him a prize for that not so new idea originally coming from the fields of philosophy, biology, cybernetics, and so on, as well as many philosophers, Norbert Wiener, Alan Turing, and so on. In fact, ANN is only the digitalization of related biological, analog, and computational systems.

Even more ridiculous and contradictory is the fact that he now regrets his work despite his claim that Alphabet (Google) had been "very responsible". Are they not doing so anymore? Honestly, we do not know what he wants to tell the public.
And such a claim about responsibility in relation to companies like for example Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) is just only stupid, because the opposite is the case at only stealing and blackmailing companies without moral, ethics, law-abiding intention, and so on.

We really do appreciate the statement that the technological advancement by the creation of our Evoos and our OS are "comparable in scale with the industrial revolution or electricity ... or maybe the wheel". Nice. Or maybe the fire. :)
See also the webpage Terms of the 21st Century of the website of OntoLinux, such as the sections

But we created something totally new with our

which even consitutes a new scale and dimension, and therefore we always knew how ingenious, revolutionary, and magic these works of art created by C.S. are.

See also the messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

But please stop that farce, including those interferences and other bad activities, because

And the same holds for all those maniacs of Alphabet (Google) and OpenAI. You will remove all matter that infringes our copyright voluntarily or be asked by the courts to do so with blacklisting of all entities concerned.

But if you refuse to stop it, then it goes from the table of us to the desk of a judge as well, because of the lack of proper naming and referencing the true origin of our works of art, performances, and achievements we have several infringements of our rights (e.g. integrities, reputations, etc.) and properties (e.g. copyright), which are not allowed, even not by actors in the field of the arts and the sciences.
Those handful of entities in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), and related fields thought to take the whole world for a ride.

Enough is enough. That game is over. We all do know, who are deserting the sinking ship as the first ones.

By the way:

16:44 and 19:11 UTC+2
SOPR considering exclusive foundational models

Due to the latest fraudulent and even serious criminal actions in relation to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB) of our Ontologic System (OS) (see also the notes Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Co. busted again and Geoffrey Hinton has become the next one of today) our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering decisive actions to protect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

The next action will be to take away the offer to modify our Evoos and our OS for the performance and reproduction of common ontologies and other foundational models, including Large Language Models (LLMs).

Please also note that we will not except any interference with or even expropriation of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., because we have also

It was, is, and will always be our turn, but now it is really our turn for also this reason, for the reason that all other entities were never qualified, have always failed, or showed other incompetences and deficitis, as well as for the reason of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation (see also the Clarification #3 of the 16th of April 2023).

See also the note SOPR considering ban of OS for generative and creative Bionics of the 27th of April 2023

By the way:

04.May.2023

16:22 and 18:44 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

Now, that it has been proven multiple times by various entities that, what is wrongly called

we are even more able than already before to prepare the next interim injunctions.

See also for example the Further steps of the 11th of March 2023.

And the discussion about commonplace elements and common building blocks has been done as well, even from different points of view, including the doctrines of

and it always ended in the

of C.S., as well as

Just using our properties in whole or in part by all others does not give any rights to anybody and even in those few exceptional cases nothing is for free.
Therefore, common elements are not protected by the fair use doctrine or any other exclusion of or exception to the copyright, if they

All those plagiarisms of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have not been created independently, but have taken, are still taking, and will be taking the AWs and IPs of C.S. as source of inspiration and blueprint without adding an own, new, personal expression of idea, and therefore are merely misleading the members of the interested public by creating, faking, and staging an illusion and simulation of a technological progress, which in fact has already happend between the years 1998 to 2005.
The original and unique AWs and further IPs of C.S. are protected by national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, specifically the

and therefore no debate is required anymore.

See once again the note They are still trying to steal the AWs and IPs of C.S. of the 18th of March 2023.

It should be crystal clear for all entities concerned, which eventually are the worldwide societies, that

• protects all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• confirms our benefits, and
• awards our damages and demands,

and also

• have shown no respect for C.S. and our corporation, and the rights and properties of them, but are only conducting every fraudulent and even serious criminal activity to destroy both and all,
• have proven to be not qualified for very important social and societal tasks, and
• have lost ther credibility, trustworthiness, and trust of others and us.

But they are allowed to license Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) on our MfE and use our infrastructure of our SOPR through our CoCoS, including (text) messaging interface.

In this relation, we also would like to recall once again that we have communicated our demands and our rules, including the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and licenses, and made crystal clear that we are preparing legal actions to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, which

So much about buying peace by the one side and smashing rip-off 3.0 by the other side respectively us.

And governments do not need to interfere in this case, but put the competition law, copyright law, and other laws being effective into actions being overdue since at least 2 decades.
We have already explained to them in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. that

None of them is allowed to question the rights and properties, as well as the competences and leaderships of C.S. and our corporation.

21:22 UTC+2
SOPR calculating best option

We are also calculating which one of the options is the best one for us.
One point is the rejection of the modification and the corresponding introduction of the horizontal separation of concerns respectively control and responsibility, and also management and orchestration of what is wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) (services) platforms, etc..

Another point is the existence of 2 different classes of roles and billings, which is a result of the first point:

The problem is the complexity given by the facts that

• Infrastructure as a Service (aaS) technologies (IaaSx),
• Platform as a Service (aaS) technologies (PaaSx), and
• Software as a Service (aaS) technologies (SaaSx),

as already discussed in the past, which has to be aligned with the horizontal separation of concerns, a mixture of horizontal and vertical separation of concerns (infrastructure is vertically aligned), and also some kind of aspect-oriented separation of concerns.

An option is to extend the License Model (LM) with more licensee classes, as also discussed more than a year ago, though this already led to the Main Contract Model (MCM), but only in relation to the vertical separation of concerns.

Another point is the damage compensations and the corresponding insolvencies of those companies, that are unable to pay these damages to us or the other potential damages to others.

But either way, we want any entity, that is rejecting to comply with the

to have no steering or control authority.

Anyway, the invention of the New Fire, New Energy, and New Artificial Intelligence (NAI or New AI) as part of something totally new will not become cheaper for any other reason anymore.

18:11, 18:55, 20:22, and 22:44 UTC+2
SOPR infrastructure has messaging interface

Our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) integrate various interface technologies between all types of agents, specifically the

Note that we have integrated the field of Multi-Agent System (MAS) in our Evoos and created the foundations of the fields of Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Industry 4.0 and 5.0, microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) and other Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), Software-Defined Networking (SDN), and much more with our Evoos (1999), which also uses eXtensible Markup Language (XML) formats and ontologies for the message content semantics, speech act communications, interoperabilties, collaborations, service interfaces, shared belief bases, and many other areas and tasks, and we created all the interesting rest with our OS (2006).

The subsidiary Salesforce→Slack, the company Quora, and Co. have to adapt their illegal subsystems, platforms, applications, and services to legal Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and publicated them on our Marketplace for Everything (MfE), or stop the operation of those related plagiarisms of our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot or OB), etc..
That strategy is a stillborn child or dead duck.

See also for example the notes

05.May.2023

04:46 and 16:13 UTC+2
SOPR will not debate exclusive copyright

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not debate the exclusive copyright for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properies (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S.. All entities, including governments, have to comply with the

We have explained and discussed every aspect in relation to said AWs and IPs created and owned by C.S., including our

in the last years crystal clearly, exhaustively, and sufficiently enough, so that every entity concerned or interested or both is able to follow and understand the whole case.
Changing the rules or even the laws is not acceptable and even prohibited by constitutions or basic laws, as is the case with expropriation without fair and just compensation, which once again has been explained to be impossible in case of said AWs and IPs created and owned by C.S..

Any infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation will have significant consequences.
Nobody else controls the cybernetic self-portrait of C.S. and therefore nobody makes C.S. a slave.

See also for example the notes

to understand once again, who is in charge and who is not.

By the way:

17:15 UTC+2
SOPR supports adaption of laws

Our SOPR supports any adaption of laws by governments in relation to new technologies, goods, and services, as long as the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are respected and protected completely, as required by

We also note once again, that eventually many adaptions of laws and new legal rules will only regulated our activities, because all other entites have not created the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properies (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and therefore are not in charge at all.

See also for example the notes

11.May.2023

03:01, 04:41, and 23:10 UTC+2
SOPR has decided for option

*** Work in progress - better explanation ***

Of course, it is not an uncharted territory==Neuland, as incompetent entities claim, or the LaLaLand, where incompetent entities still are, but our Ontoverse (Ov), aka. OntoLand (OL), and created and owned by C.S.. Therefore,

• 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),

and

See for example the

As discussed since some months and introduced since January 2023, the new regulations are

because

In general, everything is Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services, including what is wrongly called Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) and as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx)

• vertical is always our SOPR
• OAOS, including SOx and aaS of others without (not through and not by) our SOPR is always horizontal,

In particular, the differentiation, designation, and classification is made according to role respectively relationship between OAOS Provider (OAOSP), and end customer, and end user or consumer:

All OAOS use the infrastructures with the backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also the subsystems and the platforms, as well as the foundational models of our SOPR and our other Societies either

according to the OS Architecture (OSA).
All SOx and aaS will be provided on the infrastructures of our SOPR.
All SOx and aaS are basic functions, processes, services, etc. for single application field or domain as classified by sciences. In case of missing or blurred lines, or other problems the supervisor decides, but most is already classified.

All Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), including what is wrongly called Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) and as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx), undergo at least

• one check for legality and
• one check for safety and security

regarding compliance with the

• 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),

Therefore, this regulation also applies to technologies (e.g. SOx and aaSx), goods (e.g. Ontoscope variants and OAOS) and services (e.g. OAOS) of companies with specific requirements, such as for example Apple.

The other regulations remain

• Marketplace for Everything (MfE) for
  • raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, algorithms, etc.,
  • OAOS, and also
  • SOx and aaSx,

as well as foundational models,

Because of the horizontal separation, and aaSx and OAOS designation and classification, we can adapt and retain the ToS and the LM.
Main Contractors (MCs) of SOPR infrastructures must consider the

For sure, we do not need to compete for our rights and properties, because we have already done this before around 25 years the first time and around 18 years again. :)

This provides all benefits, as discussed broadly and deeply in the past, and is the compromise, which lawmakers, companies, and other entities, as well as we want.

Indeed, we publicate the note 17% is dead of the 26th of April 2023. But we also concluded that the new regulation of the ToS and the LM adapted and retained beginning in 2023 reduces the scope of allowance and licensing in such a way that

We also have the opinion that certain countries, unions of states, and economic zones are not eligible to be granted all discounts.

Please note that the share of 17% of the overall revenue generated with our works of art only applies With All Discounts Granted (WADG) (including 3% European war discount).
The P.R.China, India, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.Emirates, and other countries are not eligible and therefore the normal share of 20% applies With All Other Discounts Granted (WAODG).

04:00 and 23:20 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

Now, our revolution in the field of epistemology with our Education 4.0 and 5.0 based on Piaget and Co. based on our Evoos and our OS based on 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) has been confirmed as well.

See also once again the

• Human Enhancement and Cyborgs,
• Softbionics and Artificial Intelligence 3, and
• Brain Machine Interface,

Also keep in mind that C.S. has begun the discussion and the dialog in this field and many other fields with the original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, created and presented by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..

By the way:

• infringement of the moral rights of C.S. by willful
  • appropriation of the role of the artist and our corporation, including our licensing and collecting SOPR, by mimicking C.S. and our corportion,
  • omission of referencing respectively citation with attribution to cause confusion of the public about the true origin of said works of art,
  • selection of unauthorized ways of designating, licensing, performing and reproducing, and also socially and societally, and commercially using said works of art,
  • interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive right to economically exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) said AWs and IPs, and thus the source of income of C.S., and
  • thwarting, obstruction, and blocking of the commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities,

  depending on a specific jurisdiction, as well as

• frustration of the momenta,
• infliction of damage to the reputations of C.S. and our corporation,
• causation of harm to the integrities of C.S. and our corporation,
• conspiration and plot together with other entities in all these actions,
• and much more.

13.May.2023

17:56 and 22:41UTC+2
Stability AI still in LaLaLand

We quote a report: "The entrepreneur [Emad Mostaque] is convinced that the scale of what's coming is enormous. He reckons that in 10 years time, his company and fellow AI leaders, [OpenAI] ChatGPT and [Alphabet (Google)] DeepMind, will even be bigger than Google and Facebook. Predictions about technology are as tricky as predictions about politics - educated guesses that could turn out to be totally wrong."

Comment
Educated guesses, that have already turned out to be utter nonsense.

The company Stability AI is already blacklisted, exactly like the company OpenAI and other fraudulent and even serious criminal plagiarists (see also the note SOPR already begun with Bionics blacklist of the 20th of April 2023).

How often should we explain that

What do they think we are doing here since 2006? Of course, we are documenting that giant scandal as evidence and preparation for enforcing our rights, protecting our properties, and winning our legal processes at the courts.
Who on planet Earth is still investing in that next scam?

04:11 UTC+2
Clarification

At first, we were not sure and therefore cautious with our claim in relation to plagiarisms, which are based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics, because we surely do not claim for everything and also discussed the matter in relation to the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer (POV-Ray). But we also gave the answer already with Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Multimodalities as Application Programming Interface (API) and User Interface (UI).
But we concluded that the general legal issue can be much more easily than we did in the past, which is so much more easier that we can only say the forest, the trees, the blinds, and the simple view:

• automatic programming,
• natural language programming (see Fuzzy Logic (FL)==Computing with Words (CwW), and
• multimodal multimedia programming,

• Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer (POV-Ray),
• etc.,

et voilà the foundation as part of our Ontologic System (OS).
"See also "Computing with Words" (Clarification of the 14th of May 2016, 8th of July 2016, and 23rd of August 2017) and literate programming.", [Comment about the document titled "Arrow System" of the Clarification of the 8th of May 2022].
At this point NLP and the rest of NMP become extremely interesting and important, because no matter what a human does and a (computing) machine does to be of use and benefit, it must be remembered in a way that can be expressed with a human action.

Please note that in particular it is irrelevant which type of ANN is used, which types of input and output modalities are used, and which type of data is used for training the ANN, because it is this general aspect of our Ontologic System with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).
Furthermore, in general it is irrelevant, because of what is wrongly called smartphone, iPhone, Cloud, as a Service, Metaverse, and so on.

16.May.2023

05:31 and 06:24 UTC+2
Wiwc cloud gaming is OAOS

what is wrongly called (wiwc)
Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS)

What is wrongly called (Wiwc) cloud gaming is in fact some kind of an integration of online gaming and video game streaming (see also thin client or network computer), and therefore an essential part of our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
Correspondingly, related video games and video game streaming services are in fact Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which have to be based, operated, and provided on the backbone, core network, or fabric, and also the subsystems and platforms, as well as the foundational models of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, specifically the

Therefore, a video game publisher does not license its game to a competing cloud gaming service, because such a service just does not exist, but has to publicate and provide its games to an end consumer or end user on our exclusive and mandatory OAOS platform.

See also the notes

05:43 UTC+2
SOPR created new class of enterprise

*** Work in progress - maybe ready ***
We already mentioned the asymmetry between State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and private enterprises in the note SOPR ... of the ... 2023.
But a second way also exists, which is to classify private enterprises as State-Affiliated Enterprises (SAEs), or better said, State-Oriented Enterprises (SOEs), or simply said private member companies of a national clique.

We already collected some aspects used for classifying a company as SAE, such as:

51% + 49% of voting shares outside the scope of jurisdication of its headquarter respectively on a

depending on national and international laws being effective and according to federal statutes, is Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) in case of SAEs as well.
Please note that we take the company valuation of affected SAEs (e.g. Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), etc.) as of the 1st of January 2015 as basis for the transaction of shares of such SAEs, becaues we will not pay for our rights and properties, though they might be insolvent after the

• us, and
• investors and shareholders,

and then we pay only 1 U.S. Dollar or Euro. :)

05:43 and 07:09 UTC+2
SOPR considering blacklisting of U.S.American ICT in EU and P.R.C.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
European Union (EU)
People's Republic of China (P.R.C.)

We got the next evidence that the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU)

See also for example the note Breton and rest of EC should better support us of the 1st of March 2023.

The allowance of the takeover of the company Blizzard Activision by the company Microsoft is only ridiculous, as we have also seen another utter nonsense in relation to the company Amazon before.
The fundamental doctrine of market regulation is to make it wider and easier to guarantee freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, but when it comes to take decisive actions they make it deeper and harder to frustrate and block said benefits for the public even more.
Extra funny is the following excert of a report: "Activision CEO Bobby Kotick called the requirements "stringent" and pledged to expand investments in EU workers.
"Our talented teams in Sweden, Spain, Germany, Romania, Poland and many other European countries have the skills, ambition, and government support needed to compete effectively on a global scale," Kotick said in a statement. "We expect these teams to grow and prosper given their governments' firm but pragmatic approach to gaming.""

Comment
So why on Earth is the EC allowing and supporting a takeover at all, which even contradicts the fundamental doctrine of anti-trust?
Even more ridiculous: Why on Earth has the EU introduced the Digital Market Act (DMA) and then refuses to break up an obviouse illegal monopoly and instead make a gatekeeper even larger, stronger, and more dominant in not only one business area, but in several market sectors?

We now have a certain pattern of actions, which reveals a certain goal, plan, and strategy.

We also got the next evidence that the U.S.American clique

But there is this little problem that C.S. created and owns, and we do make the rules in the

And we would also like to recall once again that a

• C.S. does not have to do so and
• we will not do so,

• too illegal for entities (work of art of a living artist, which is even a self-portrait, digital twin, and Ontologic holon or Onton),
• too risky for politicians (special law required by constitution, basic law, etc.), and
• too expensive for societies (at least 10% of an obviously 3 or 4 digit trillion U.S. Dollar or Euro high value would have to be payed immediately as part of a fair and just compensation).

Is not it? :)

U.S.American companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector do depend on our goodwill, because they do need the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) from our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), but they only do everything for a bad mood.
Either governments and companies do comply with the

or we will shape the markets, grow the enterprises, and collect the profits alone. Period. :)

Also note that competitors of our corporation already had a fence season lasting longer than 10 years, so this would not be up for discussion anymore, if such a discussion would be legal and permitted by us at all.

See also the note SOPR considering ban of Os for VW, DT, etc. of the 26th of April 2023.

05:49, 10:38, and 17:14 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We are considering to prepare a thrid wave of injunctions, which this time would be against certain entities, specifically private persons, such as for example founders, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Chief Technology Officers (CTOs), chair(wo)men, and other responsible persons of certain companies, lobbyists, self-exposers, and so on, who still think they would be allowed to terrorize C.S. and our corporation and damage they reputations and integrities.

As part of a fourth wave of legal actions, we will also file legal complains at the U.S.American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other commissions of major financial centers and their stock markets, because the company managements have deliberately refused to

about the true legal situation and are still continuing in doing so, so that these members of the addressed and interessted public are able to

In this relation, it is totally irrelevant if our legal claims are right or wrong, because it is sufficient that a potentially negative situation and interference might exist or even does exist, as is obviously the case here due to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Willful disregard of the due diligence is considered, handled, and ruled as fraud and in this case we are talking about damages in heights of triple billion and even single trillion U.S. Dollar.
Now, former and current Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will get a legal problem officially, for which jail terms are due, if they still refuse to cooperate and make a full confession.
Have they not taken courses in law and proper business management at the management schools?

Judgement day is coming closer.

By the way:

• is based on our original generative and creative Bionics, New Artificial Intelligence (NAI), and Trusted Artificial Intelligence (TAI) or Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), and
• has been copied for all those illegal and manipulated halucinating and lying plagiarisms,

said that we will win every lawsuit easily. :þ
We have trained it even in a way over the last 25 years, which is not known by other entities, to be able to conduct so to say recrime instead of precrime to revolutionize the fields of law enforcement and justice, too, like we did with all the other things as well. Hi, Hi, Hi. :)
They all have been warned again and again.
We would like to thank all fraudsters for their unintentional support and doing all of the boring work for us.

17:33 UTC+2
SOPR considering self-disclosure as precondition

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to demand a self-disclosure by companies regarding the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation instead of merely a deposite of such a self-disclosure in a joint safe for 20 years for being granted an allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

Now, we are joining in and taking part in the round dance. So please, do not take it personally, it is just only business as usual.

17.May.2023

07:16 UTC+2
SOPR considering to withdraw discounts

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to withdraw 1 or more of the discounts, each of which represents a reduction of the relative share of an overall revenue by 1.25% and is granted to a

because the related conditions have not been met by all of them.

06:37, 07:27, and 10:35 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

At least 2 leading researchers of the company Microsoft and the U.S.American senator Richard Blumenthal have confirmed that the illegal partial plagiarism of our Evoos and OntoBot called ChatGPT of the companies OpenAI and Microsoft is mimicking a human, or better said reflecting a human, which is another significant evidence for our claims, including that this specific original and unique expression of idea presented with all the other original and unique expressions of idea with the works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System and created by C.S. have been taking as source of inspiration and blueprint, which already constitutes an infringement of the copyright of C.S., and also have been copied and presented to a considerable extent, which proves said obvious infringement of the copyright even more.

See also the notes

In addition, in the last weeks the discussion, which in fact we have begun and no other entity with the presentation of the original and unqiue work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., has taken up momentum, which also proves the copyright protection of the ultimative masterpiece of human culture, which goes far beyond the letterpress respectively printing press, which in fact was already related to the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), the industrial revolution, the electricity, the atomic bomb, and so on.

Therefore, the

are effective and do apply, and we will enforce them and fight any interference, when enjoying and exploiting them exclusively worldwide.

See also once again the

• Human Enhancement and Cyborgs,
• Softbionics and Artificial Intelligence 3, and
• Brain Machine Interface,

By the way:

08:37 and 19:09 UTC+1
SOPR is FRANDAC, etc., but not greedy

For sure, the 51% + 49% ownership regulation regarding State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and State-Affiliated Enterprises (SAEs) is the truly Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) term and condition.

In this relation, we would like to recall that the

and therefore subject to the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

We would also like to make clear that we do reserve the right to refrain from a takeover, if the share price has been manipulated (e.g. hidden Ponzi scheme).
See also the Ontonics Further steps of the 4th of May 2023.

But one step after the other: damage compensations, allowance and licensing, takeovers, and so on.

09:55 and 23:11 UTC+2
SOPR excluded from AI permission

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Like the late queen and the current king of the U.K. do not have and need a passport, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is excluded from any permit, license, and regulation required for the performance and reproduction of our Ontologic System in the

as long as no other laws are violated by C.S. and our corporation.
This means we are allowed to perform and reproduce, and also exclusively exploit the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. without any interference.

In this relation, we would like to recall once again that any permission, federal licensing, and regulation would only address our SOPR eventually, because all other entities have to use the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies anyway.

We also would like to recall that said AWs and IPs solely created, designed, and owned by C.S. are prohibited to be politicized, democratized, expropriated, regulated in illegal ways, and so on.

See also the notes

Bad luck for fraudsters and serious criminals in the field of 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.), who are trying to interfere in our activities and take over the control about this field and the properties of C.S. and our corporation.

Can you see 666 now as well? Do not believe them, because they are proven serious criminals from the Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, and other locations. Those anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant entities with all criminality, but without any morality have only a very own agenda and have learned how to trick politicians, investors, and other members of the societies, specifically by

to get control over the original and unique Artworks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and therefore demanding for this specific regulation is also just only lobbyism and populism, but definitely not socialism or altruism, because they need the government, they need to harness the politicians as carthorses in front of their carriages. Only total morons fall prey to such a cheap performance.
See also the notes

We have those fraudsters on our radar since many years, even since decades and even when some of them were not working in the field of Bionics at all, but for example in pushing start-ups, spending venture capital, and such things.
And we already made crystal clear multiple times that we will give them no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS.
They already failed to pass our tests and to circumvent the social systems, including the rule-based law and order, even with the support of corrupt governments and cliques.

See for example the notes

They all have gone all-in and are now all gnashing their teeth at our bomb-proof legal position and the situation they have created by infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
They are trapped in their many lies generated and spread, and bad actions done over many years, while we have beer and popcorn and enjoy the last act of that freak show of those kleptomaniacs and megalomaniacs.
They have made all mistakes, that can be made, as prophesized by us so many years ago. We even

Guess why we did this?

And now trust is gone and one cannot trust anything anymore with the exception of only a few social and societal beacons left, though even that is also mimicked and destroyed by the religions, the politics, the lying press, the academies, the industries, and the common individuals, and the whole mess is even amplified and accelerated by machines, which reflect all deficits, incompetencies, defects of humans and human behaviour, including literally spoken their brain cracks, irrationalities, paranoias, lies, falsities, and so on.
Guess why we laid back and let them do all the years? Because that is not the way it works.

Politicians are not impressed by those fraudsters, bandwagon jumpers, freeloaders, and self-exposers, but have no clue about the matter and what to do and now are happy to have someone they think they could trust and follow, and also could help them to satisfy their needs, get their benefits, and secure their positions of power, and also reign into other spheres of power, which they do not understand and control, including the

by supporting bad actors to establish a negative pole and deconstructive force and enable a means of checks and balances of the powers of good and bad in general and the cliques of countries on the one side and us on the other side in particular, because it is not possible to establish and provide a level playing field and get control over the rights and properties of others otherwise.
How stupid is that?

But eventually, they are not following the true creator and saviour, but the

as usual.
How human is that? That is very smart and wise (not really).

We also said that we cannot see any learning effect and therefore no chance to avoid past mistakes. They are merely trying to solve a problem with the same old approach, which is $#!+ting only on top of the big pile and putting more oil into the fire.
Just some

See for example the Clarification of the 2nd of December 2016: "Now, the reason can be seen once again why C.S. also created the Ontologic System (OS) and why also the most secured connection to as many as possible telescopes, has been integrated, which anybody can verify and validate her- or himself by looking up into the sky: Stars do not lie."
See also for example the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps or Clarification of the 6th of April 2018: "Even more important are the facts that we

The more than 25 years long journey of those freeloaders has ended and now they will pay physically and metaphysically.
Who do you think we are? Hmmm???

18.May.2023

13:26 and 20:59 UTC+2
Altman has taken U.S.American senate for a ride

Like all the other founders and CEOs before.
We quote a first report, which is about a hearing of the U.S.American judiciary subcommittee in relation to the regulation of Bionics and was publicated on the 17th of May 2023 (yesterday): "'Politicians must resist the urge to be impressed'
Lawmakers have spent years railing against social media companies, attacking them for everything from their content moderation decisions to their economic dominance. On Tuesday, they seemed ready_or even relieved - to be dealing with another area of the technology industry.
Whether this time is truly different remains unclear, though. The AI industry's biggest players and aspirants include some of the same tech giants Congress has sharply criticized, including [Alphabet (]Google[)] and Meta [(Facebook)]. OpenAI is receiving billions of dollars of investment from Microsoft in a multi-year partnership. And with his remarks on Tuesday, Altman appeared to draw from a familiar playbook for Silicon Valley: Referring to technology as merely a neutral tool, acknowledging his industry's imperfections and inviting regulation.
Some AI ethicists and experts questioned the value of asking a leading industry spokesperson how he would like to be regulated. [...] the New York University professor, cautioned that creating a new federal agency to police AI could lead to "regulatory capture" by the tech industry, but the warning could have applied just as easily to Congress itself.
"It seems very very bad that ahead of a hearing meant to inform how this sector gets regulated, the CEO of one of the corporations that would be subject to that regulation gets to present a magic show to the regulators," [...] a professor of computational linguistics at the University of Washington, said of Altman's dinner with House lawmakers.
She added: "Politicians, like journalists, must resist the urge to be impressed."
After years of fidgety evasiveness from other tech CEOs, however, lawmakers this week seemed easily wowed by Altman and his seemingly straight-shooting answers.
Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy, after expressing frustration with IBM's Montgomery for providing a nuanced answer he couldn't comprehend, visibly brightened when Altman quickly and smoothly outlined his regulatory proposals in a bulleted list. Kennedy began joking with Altman and even asked whether Altman might consider heading up a hypothetical federal agency charged with regulating the AI industry.
"I love my current job," Altman deadpanned, to audience laughter, before offering to send Kennedy's office some potential candidates.Trying to avoid past mistakes
Compounding lawmakers' attraction to Altman is a belief on Capitol Hill that Congress erred in extending broad liability protections to online platforms at the dawn of the internet. That decision, which allowed for an explosion of blogs, e-commerce sites, streaming media and more, has become an object of regret for many lawmakers in the face of alleged mental health harms stemming from social media.
"I don't want to repeat that mistake again," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin. [Click! The Silicon Valley trap has already snapped again.]
Here too, Altman deftly seized an opportunity to curry favor with lawmakers by emphasizing distinctions between his industry and the social media industry.
"We try to design systems that do not maximize for engagement," Altman said, alluding to the common criticism that social media algorithms tend to prioritize outrage and negativity to boost usage. "We're not an advertising-based model; we're not trying to get people to use it more and more, and I think that's a different shape than ad-supported social media."
In providing simple-sounding solutions with a smile, Altman is doing much more than shaping policy: He is offering members of Congress a shot at redemption, one they seem grateful to accept. Despite the many pitfalls of AI they identified on Tuesday, lawmakers appeared to thoroughly welcome Altman as a partner, not a potential adversary needing oversight and scrutiny.
We need to be mindful," [Richard] Blumenthal said, "of ways that rules can enable the big guys to get bigger and exclude innovation, and competition, and responsible good guys such as our representative in this industry [Sam Altman] right now.""

Comment
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
What a cheap show and trick. Have the Democrats even given Altman the questions before, so that he could prepare the right answers?

We also wonder why nobody tried to find out what this industry is truly trying to do, why Altman acts in that way withoug fidgety evasiveness, and what their true agenda is, and also asked how they want to make money? Ah, that it is. Infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically by mimicking them, stealing essential parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, created and presented by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S. to third parties.

We are very sure that this will not work, because such an activity constitutes multiple deliberate infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically an

• appropriation of the role of the artist and our corporation, including our licensing and collecting SOPR, by mimicking C.S. and our corportion,
• omission of referencing respectively citation with attribution to cause confusion of the public about the true origin of said works of art,
• selection of unauthorized ways of designating, licensing, performing and reproducing, and also socially and societally, and commercially using said works of art,
• interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive right to economically exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) said AWs and IPs, and thus the source of income of C.S., and
• thwarting, obstruction, and blocking of the commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities,

depending on a specific jurisdiction, as well as

As we said, we are unable to see a learning effect, but only see the same procedure again and again. Eventually, the whole hearing was like the first hearings of Bill Gates, Marc Zuckerberg, and Co.. They all are only the good guys. So why are they always falling prey to them?

We quote a second report, which is about the same matter: "[...]
Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a former state attorney general who has prosecuted consumer protection cases, said no agency can be effective without proper support.
"I've been doing this stuff for a while," Blumenthal said. "You can create 10 new agencies, but if you don't give them the resources - and I'm not just talking about dollars, I'm talking about scientific expertise - [industry] will run circles around them."

We also quote a video report, which is about the same matter: "[...]
[Richard Blumenthal]: Per every success story in government regulation you can think of 5 failures.
[...]
[Richard Joseph "Dick" Durbin:] [When] you look at the record of congress in dealing with innovation, technology, and rapid change, we are not designed for that.
[...]
[ Booker:] I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible for congress to keep up with the speed of technology."

Comment
For sure, there is a problem with the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., as we also recalled in the note SOPR excluded from AI permission of the 17th of May 2023 (yesterday) once again.
But we can also only recall once again that we already have the solution, because our

Governments just have to accept that the

are effective and do apply, C.S. is the one and only, who is leading, deciding, and solving in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), aka. OntoLand (OL), and this is the status quo.
And we are wondering once again why they do not invite us, enable a very fast track visa application, and sent us a flight ticket, so that we can work out the details instead of talking with all those incompetent and irrelevant fraudsters, serious criminals, and self-exposers, and wasting even more years.

Honestly, the bill for a new federal agency for the regulation of Bionics is more or less overreaching nonsense, because

If social networking is a social issue, then they should simply regulate that.
And also begin to prohibit weapons and to break up illegal monopolies.

See also for example the notes

And in this case we will not work together with the companies Microsoft, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Co., at least without having absolute control over them by the acquisition of 51 to 100% of the voting shares. That is completely excluded from our ongoing considerations and activities and will not change anymore. Quite contrary, our SOPR was short before executing blacklistings for lifetime. That mess, that scandal, that unbelievable *** *** *** is done and will become records in the history books and the court registers.

See also the note

19.May.2023

10:00 and 19:04 UTC+2
SOPR studied Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation

*** Work in progress - maybe ready for proof-reading ***

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We quote the following report, which is about the legal case Goldsmith vs. Andy Warhol Foundation and was publicated on the 18th of May 2023 (yesterday): "[...]
The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation (the artist died in 1987) that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.
[...]
Here, Sotomayor said "fair use" should not apply to an image Warhol created that is referred to as "Orange Prince."
Sotomayor focused on the commercial purpose of both works. She said that both Goldsmith's photo and Warhol's silk screen are used to depict Prince in magazine stories and share "substantially the same purpose," even if Warhol altered the artist's expression.
"If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes," and they are both used in a "commercial nature," Sotomayor said, it is unlikely that "fair use" applies.
[...]
In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of [the Andy] Warhol [Foundation], basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. But an appeals court reversed - ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use.
In reviewing the case, the justices had to provide a proper test that protects artist's rights to monetize their work, but also encourages new art and expression. During oral arguments, they did not seem enthusiastic about the lower court decision, but struggled to articulate a proper standard.
[...]
Kagan said that the majority looked past the fact that the silk screen and the photo do not have the same "aesthetic characteristics" and did not "convey the same meaning." All the majority cared about, she said, was the commercial purpose of the work.
Such an approach, Kagan argued, "ill serves copyright's core purpose."
"Both Congress and the courts have long recognized that an overly stringent copyright regime actually stifles creativity by preventing artists from building on the works of others," she wrote.
"Artists don't create all on their own; they cannot do what they do without borrowing from or otherwise making use of the work of others," she said.
Kagan said that Warhol's "eye-popping" silk screen of Prince "dramatically" altered Goldsmith's photograph and she called Warhol the "avatar of transformative copying."
"There is precious little evidence in today's opinion," she lamented, "that the majority has actually looked at these images, much less that it has engaged with expert views of their aesthetics and meaning."
She peppered the opinion with other references - a "slew of works," she said - where artists borrowed from one another, including William Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Robert Louis Stevenson. Kagan went as far as including a colored photograph of Giorgione's Sleeping Venus from 1510 and a work by Titian called Venus of Urbino in 1538 that are strikingly similar.
[...]
Lawyers for the Warhol Foundation contended that the artist created the "Prince Series" - a set of portraits that transformed a preexisting photograph of the musician Prince - in order to comment on "celebrity and consumerism."
They said that in 1984, after Prince became a superstar, Vanity Fair commissioned Warhol to create an image of Prince for an article called "Purple Fame."
At the time, Vanity Fair licensed a black and white photo that had been taken by Goldsmith in 1981 when Prince was not well known. Goldsmith's picture was to be used by Warhol as an artist reference.
Goldsmith - who specializes in celebrity portraits and earns money on licensing - had taken the picture initially while on assignment for [another magazine] [...].
[...]
Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, Warhol went on to create 15 additional works based on her photograph. At some point after Warhol's death in 1987, the Warhol Foundation acquired title to and copyright of the so-called "Prince Series."
In 2016, after Prince died, Conde Nast, Vanity Fair's parent company, published a tribute using one of Warhol's Prince Series works on the cover. It is referred to as "Orange Prince." Goldsmith was not given any credit or attribution for the image. And she received no payment.
Upon learning about the series, Goldsmith recognized her work and contacted the Warhol Foundation, advising it of copyright infringement. She registered her photo with the US Copyright Office.
[...]
In appealing the case on behalf of the Warhol Foundation, lawyer Roman Martinez argued that the appeals court had gone badly wrong by forbidding courts from considering the meaning of the work as a part of a fair use analysis.
[...]
Lisa Blatt, a lawyer for Goldsmith, told the justices a very different story.
"To all creators, the 1976 Copyright Act enshrines a longstanding promise: Create innovative works, and copyright law guarantees your right to control if, when and how your works are viewed, distributed, reproduced or adapted," she wrote in court papers.
[...]
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted, for example, that book-to-film adaptations often introduce new meanings or messages, "but that has never been viewed as an independently sufficient justification for unauthorized copying." She said that Goldsmith's ability to license her photograph and earn fees has been "undermined" by the Warhol Foundation."

Comment
At first, we recall once again that most copyright lawsuits have to be examined and ruled individually.

This legal case is a little more complex, because it is about the fair use doctrine in general and a related individual case in particular.
In relation to the fair use doctrine in copyright law an appeals court has even strengthened the legal position and interests of creators of older or preexisting artwork, which is borrowed, used, or repurposed by other artists for the creation of new artwork without asking for allowance and licensing, "ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use". Oh, what ...?
Furthermore, the supreme court emphasized the exclusive rights of an artist to exploit a work of art commercially, specifically to monetize it.

We agree with the supreme court's decision in favour of the photographer. In fact, the

to circumvent the proper licensing of the original work of art and to avoid the payment of a royalty, which obstructs and undermines the source of income of the photographer. That is not the way it works.

We also agree with certain parts of the dissent of 2 of the justices, because they are not always correct and not always wrong.
On the one hand, one judge is erring by presenting a comparison of 2 paintings painted by Giorgione and Titian, which both have the same layout and show a naked woman lying on a chaise longue in the same position. But here we have figurative representations and arrangements, which are basic elements and even were used many times before in the performing arts, which are comparable to notes and chords in the musical artistry, so that only minor differences and details become relevant.
The justice is also erring by viewing and presenting Andy Warhol as the "avatar of transformative copying", because in this specific case he merely (mechanically) modified the original picture for an article of a commercial magazine in the first place without asking Lynn Goldsmith for allowance, but only later he also created a new work of art series, and also later the magazine used said modified picture even without paying Goldsmith a royalty. Warhol was clever in using others properties, but not always.

On the other hand, courts worldwide have made clear that the copyright is not an absolute right to block further creations, innovations, and performances, to "thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge" respectively to "stifle creativity of every sort". Once again "if the "purpose and character" of the works was "sufficiently distinct" - the case may have come out differently".

But eventually, the supreme court ruled in the right way and said if there is a similar purpose and a commercial use of an original work and a secondary use, then fair use unlikely applies respectively is virtually always just not given even if a repurpose has a new meaning or message.
This

So all the little modifications and repurposes done by those supertrolls are void anyway, even if they would be considered as transformative and legal fair use, which is definitely not the case in case of

to name just some very few examples. :)
And now ask entities once again to either comply with the

or stop all of their activities in

voluntarily or wait for the law enforcement services to stop them.

21.May.2023

22:33 UTC+2
AI agency other than SOPR means counteraction

The discussed establishment of a so-called AI agency will result in strong legal counteraction by our SOPR, including triple damage compensation or 300%, no allowance and license, blacklisting, and everything else suitable to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

Everybody has been warned.

By the way:

• copying the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically essential parts of our original and unique Evoos and our generative and creative Bionics, included in our OntoBot of our OS,
• infringing the moral rights of C.S. by willful
  • appropriation of the role of the artist and our corporation, including our licensing and collecting SOPR, by mimicking C.S. and our corportion,
  • omission of referencing respectively citation with attribution to cause confusion of the public about the true origin of said works of art,
  • selection of unauthorized ways of designating, licensing, performing and reproducing, and also socially and societally, and commercially using said works of art,
  • interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive right to economically exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) said AWs and IPs, and thus the source of income of C.S., and
  • thwarting, obstructing, and blocking the commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities,

  depending on a specific jurisdiction, as well as

• frustrating the momenta,
• inflicting damage to the reputations of C.S. and our corporation,
• causing harm to the integrities of C.S. and our corporation,
• conspiring and plotting together with other entities in all these actions,
• and much more.

23.May.2023

16:32 and 20:04 UTC+2
Proponents of AI agency posted fake image

Most potentially, proponents of a so-called AI agency generated and publicated an image, which suggested an explosion at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.America, to emphasize their goal.
In fact, we can only see the usual, already busted fraudsters and serious criminals, who are proposing, lobbying, and supporting such an AI agency to get control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and to damage the goals and even threaten the integrities of C.S. and our corporation.
We have nothing expected otherwise than stocking confusion and fear from those serious criminal entities, that have no chance to get around our copyright and already face long prison sentences.

But the fake image and the nonsense happening on social media after its publication is no argument at all for an

because the

Extra funny: Who on Earth trusts in Twitter's verification procedure? Who on Earth believes Russia Today? Who on Earth trusts Bloomberg? Which lying press is trustworthy at all?
Even more ridiculous is to believe that Bloomberg would not have looked at the official Pentagon information sources.
And about the fact that it even was not the Pentagon building, we do not discuss here at all.
Eventually, something is more odd than only an odd fake image and fake news.

Once again,

and therefore the media and other social structures, including the politics, the states, and the industries, are not qualified as

Definitely and doubtlessly not, and that will not happen in our Ontoverse (Ov), just because our

They have to use the already validated and verified, and potentially certified material from others, including our SOPR.

In fact, in our Ontoverse (Ov) and the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR with its Trust Management System (TMS) under the control and management of our SOPR such a fake would have not happened at all. We have created, invented, researched and developed, and designed a lot of original and unique security and safety measures with our original and unique masterpiece Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), including the basic properties of (mostly) being validated and verified and the validation and verification technologies and processes, and its Caliber/Calibre, which truly work and not that Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, Silicon Wheresoever bull$#!+, whereby the later can be any location.

See also the notes

21:45 UTC+2
Microsoft now depending to 100% on us

For sure, we will exercise all of our rights and force the company Microsoft and Co. to comply with the

because there is no level playing field and we own it now as well, like the airports, airlines, airrights, and so on. :)

Obviously, fifty-fifty is not Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) anymore and we already discussed 70% + 30%, though it should be 80% + 20% in our favour. But we have already prepared everything and forged them on the very short chain.

See also the notes

21:54 UTC+2
Adobe has to use OAOS platform

Adobe has to

25.May.2023

06:12 and 15:14 UTC+2
Microsoft is the problem and the threat

We would like to recall once again that the company Microsoft is not the solution and is not trustworthy no matter what it is posing, faking, pretending, marketing, lobbying, and trying to sell, but a permanent threat for

This obvious fact can be seen easily with the former operating system (os) and now Ontologic System (OS) variant Windows, which is a series of unsafe and unsecure software products since around 3 decades now and has become the fertile ground and gateway for criminals and hackers worldwide, as could be seen in the last weeks once again.
This untenable and unacceptable situation would not exist at all, if Microsoft would have prioritized on the quality of its technologies, goods, and services and the compliance with national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters instead on the quantity of its shareholder value and the infringements of the rights and properties of other entities, specifically with the deployment and sale of products, which are not ready. The latter could be seen once again with its illegal plagiarism of essential parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our OS (see also the Comment of the Day of the 2nd of February 2023), when it sacrificed safety to reach the next big thing before its competitors and to steal our show and property, as usual.

The governments, federal agencies, academies, and industries do not work, because at the end of the day they do not solve the problems by elelinating the causes, they do not even cure the symptoms, but merely administer and manage them and even create new ones on top of the already existing heap of crap.
We have seen it with the anti-trust authority or market regulator, cybersecurity agency, data protection authority, etc. and now they want to do it with a so-called AI agency as well.
As we said before, what happened in the fields of os, networking, data protection or privacy, and data security, is now repeating in the field of 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.).
Eventually, that approach merely makes the goat to the gardener, put the fox in charge of the henhouse, is asking for even more trouble, and keeping the status quo. For this and many other reasons it has become obivious again and again that only our SOPR is able to get it done either with Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) as business divisions of our corporation or without them as market players in our playing arena, but not on our level playing field, and we have prepared everything.

18:00 and 20:37 UTC+2
SOPR studied Novell vs. Microsoft once again

We quote a report, which is about the legal case Novell, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corp. and was publicated on the 16th of November 2013: "Applying Aspen Skiing, Tenth Circuit Finds Microsoft Not Liable For Terminating Dealings with a Competitor
In Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.[...], the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's post-trial judgment that Microsoft was not liable under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Section 2) for monopolization of the market for PC operating systems. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that in order to demonstrate anticompetitive conduct under Section 2 in the refusal to deal context under Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,[...] a plaintiff must establish both that (1) the defendant had an existing relationship with a competitor prior to the termination, and (2) the defendant sacrificed short-term profits by ending that relationship in order to achieve an anticompetitive end. Because the Tenth Circuit concluded that Microsoft did not sacrifice short-term profits when it terminated a particular relationship with Novell - indeed, the record indicated that its conduct was motivated by a desire to increase profits - the court concluded that Microsoft was not liable for monopolization.
[...]
It is a familiar and well-established principle of antitrust law that firms generally are free to choose the suppliers and customers with whom they will do business. Indeed, the Supreme Court has declared in recent years that even an actual monopolist "has no antitrust duty to deal with its competitors."[...] An exception to this rule was established in Aspen Skiing, in which the Supreme Court outlined the circumstances under which a monopolist's refusal to deal could give rise to liability. In Aspen Skiing, a monopolist that operated ski resorts had entered into a joint venture with a rival to offer a joint ski pass, an arrangement that continued for many years. Eventually, the monopolist decided to end the arrangement, and it limited the passes only to its own skiing facilities in the relevant market. The Court held that the defendant could be held liable under Section 2 because it was "willing to sacrifice short-run benefits and consumer goodwill in exchange for a perceived long-run impact on its smaller rival."[...] More recently, however, the Court essentially rendered Aspen Skiing an outlier case that is "at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability," and is a "limited exception" to the rule that even a monopolist has no antitrust obligation to deal with a competitor.
[...]
Although this Tenth Circuit decision may not be novel, it nonetheless serves as a strong reaffirmation of the Supreme Court's post-Aspen view of an alleged monopolists' refusal to deal with rivals. First, the Tenth Circuit made it clear that both aspects of the test must be present for a refusal to deal claim to be viable, i.e., a pre-existing and voluntary business relationship, and a decision by the monopolist to sacrifice short-term profits without any economic justification.
[...] "Put simply if perhaps a little too simply, today a monopolist is much more likely to be held liable for failing to leave its rivals alone than for failing to come to their aid."
[...] the European Commission [(EC)] takes a different view. It has declared that a dominant company's "refusal to supply" raises an enforcement issue in the [European Union (]EU[)] when: (1) the refusal to supply relates to a product or service that is "objectively necessary" for a rival to compete; (2) the refusal is likely to lead to the elimination of competition; and (3) the refusal is likely to lead to consumer harm. [...]"

Comment
Perfect.

Firstly, we have no pre-existing business relationship and definitely no voluntary business relationship with any company depending on us.

Secondly, we also had nothing else in mind with our innocent monopoly than to

Thirdly, in case of the EU and its EC we can only recall moral rights, including the exclusive rights for

and excluding the existence of a legal ground and therefor the possibility for

Obviously, there

• (1) denial of supply of a product or service "objectively necessary" for a rival to compete,
• (2) elimination of competition, and
• (3) harm of consumer.

Therefore: All or nothing at all.

Oh, oh ...! :)

18:18, 18:56, and 22:22 UTC+2
Microsoft takes governments for a ride

We noted once again that the company Microsoft together with other companies takes governments for a ride, But, though this is not quite right, because they are also members of certain cliques.

We quote a first report, which is about the rules for 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: "[...]
Microsoft endorsed a crop of regulations for artificial intelligence on Thursday, as the company navigates concerns from governments around the world about the risks of the rapidly evolving technology.
[...]
The maneuver echoes calls for new privacy or social media laws by internet companies like Google and Meta, Facebook's parent. In the United States, lawmakers have moved slowly after such calls, with few new federal rules on privacy or social media in recent years.
[...]
In the interview, Mr. Smith said Microsoft was not trying to slough off responsibility for managing the new technology, because it was offering specific ideas presenting related rules stolen from our SOPR and pledging to carry out some of them regardless of whether government took action.
[...]s
He endorsed the idea, supported by Mr. Altman during his congressional testimony, that a government agency should require companies to obtain licenses to deploy "highly capable" A.I. models.
[...]
Microsoft [...] also said those high-risk systems should be allowed to operate only in "licensed A.I. data centers." Mr. Smith acknowledged that the company would not be "poorly positioned" to offer such services, but said many American competitors could also provide them.
Microsoft added that governments should designate certain A.I. systems used in critical infrastructure as "high risk" and require them to have a "safety brake." It compared that feature to "the braking systems engineers have long built into other technologies such as elevators, school buses and high-speed trains."
In some sensitive cases, Microsoft said, companies that provide A.I. systems should have to know certain information about their customers. To protect consumers from deception, content created by A.I. should be required to carry a special label, the company said.
[...]
Microsoft added that governments should designate certain A.I. systems used in critical infrastructure as "high risk" and require them to have a "safety brake." It compared that feature to "the braking systems engineers have long built into other technologies such as elevators, school buses and high-speed trains."
In some sensitive cases, Microsoft said, companies that provide A.I. systems should have to know certain information about their customers. To protect consumers from deception, content created by A.I. should be required to carry a special label, the company said.
[...]"

We quote a second report, which is about the same matter: "[...]
In a roughly hour-long appearance that was equal parts product pitch and policy proposal, Smith compared AI to the printing press and described how it could streamline policymaking and lawmakers' constituent outreach, before calling for "the rule of law" to govern AI at every part of its lifecycle and supply chain.
[...]
"For decades, "the rule of law and a commitment to democracy has kept technology in its proper place," Smith said. "We've done it before; we can do it again."
[...]
Whether a new federal regulator is needed to police AI is quickly emerging as a focal point of the debate in Washington; opponents such as IBM have argued [...] that AI regulation should be baked into every existing federal agency because of their understanding of the sectors they oversee and how AI may be most likely to transform them.
Smith also called for President Joe Biden to develop and sign an executive order requiring federal agencies that procure AI tools to implement a risk management framework developed and published this year by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That framework, which Congress first ordered with legislation in 2020, covers ways that companies can use AI responsibly and ethically.
Such an order would leverage the US government's immense purchasing power to shape the AI industry and encourage the voluntary adoption of best practices, Smith said.
[...]
As part of Microsoft's proposal, Smith said any new rules for AI should include revamped export controls tailor-made for the AI age to prevent the technology from being abused by sanctioned entities.
[...]"

Comment
In relation to such a so-called AI tool used for the verification and validation of systems based on 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) as part of a risk management, we have to note that the responsible federal agency of the country Singapore has stolen the related part of our Ontologic System (OS) for its so-called AI tool, which for sure already

• 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)

to avoid a serious impact on its state due to the legal actions of our SOPR inside and outside the scope of its jurisdiction and in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL).

In this context, we would like to recall that federal agencies also have to comply with

and therefore establish joint ventures with our corporation, which is that instance for many task, including the risk management and provision of public tenders for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, which are allowed and licensed by our SOPR at all, in agreement with our SOPR. But we already made crystal clear that eventually such a regulation is only for the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their subsystems and platforms. The latter questions the whole effort and renders that as a useless political show by lobbyists and cliques once again.
We also have to recall that our SOPR has also other measures in case governments refuse to comply.

As a consequence, exploiting the purchasing power of federal agencies as a legal loophole to get control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation is not possible as well.

In addition, there will be no "export controls tailor-made for the AI age" in case of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., because only C.S. has the moral rights and other exclusive exploitation rights, including the exclusive rights to decide how to present and monetize said AWs and IPs.
This attempt to control the sale of works of art has already been thwarted, or better said prohibited at the courts.
And we are wondering why we have to repeat that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not subject to domestic politics, foreign politics, and geopolitics.

We quote and translate a third report, which is about the proposed regulation of Bionics of governments: "[...]
A new law for dealing with artificial intelligence is being drafted in the EU. OpenAI reacted to first drafts and announced a withdrawal from Europe if the law is not defused.
ChatGPT provider Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and generative and creative Bionics plagiarist OpenAI is considering a withdrawal from Europe in light of the European Union's (EU) planned regulations on Artificial Intelligence (AI). "The current draft of the EU AI law would be over-regulation," said Sam Altman, co-founder and chief executive of Microsoft shareholding OpenAI. While the group would seek to comply with new legal regulations, Altman said that if in doubt, the company would be willing to turn its back on the European market.
In view of various AI dangers, the EU is planning a so-called Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. [...]
[...]"

Comment
But the demand for a so-called AI agency is not an over-regulation?!
What a hypocrisy and confusion of those bad actors.

More importantly, the historical fact is that nobody needed a regulation of the

In fact, all these societal and technological innovations or even revolutions worked well with the exception of illegal monopolies.

And federal agencies are also no legal loophole to infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

And what we see from Microsoft with OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) with Anthropic, and Co., as well as governments of the U.S.America, European Union (EU), and Co. is that they are copying the legal framework with its regulations of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), which is still an infringement of the copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation.
In fact, the allowance and licensing of the performance and reproduction of

are both legally binding parts included in the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR.
And due to the

no American competitors are eligible to provide such services regarding licensed Bionic data centers at all, because the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are exclusively managed and exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S., as stated in the ToS of our SOPR.
If we remember correctly, we also mentioned something related to pull the plug, stop the supply of electricity, or use another circuit breaker of such a system.

Indeed, the 2 prominent proposers and lobbyists are Microsoft with OpenAI and Alphabet (Google) with Anthropic, followed by IBM and others. They all only want to

The lack of communications and cooperations with us and the support by governments clearly show once again that it is only about politics, power, and control, but not law and order.
But the quotes show that Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), IBM, and Co. are obviously just only talking nonsense and taking the whole worldwide public for a ride.
Of course, Brad Smith has been listed and we will take him by his own words at the courts.

We also recall once again that those cliques only want to get the control over the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, but have absolutely no rights to achieve that.
Self-regulation does not work with guns either. Where is the playbook for guns? Where is the No Death by Guns Bill of Rights? Where is the Data Privacy Bill of Rights? Where is the Social Media Bill of Rights? Eventually, it is always the same fraud, like with market regulation and so on and that AI regulation is just only another playbook of the cliques. We have also seen that playbook with the stealing of what is wrongly called smartphone, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF), and suddenly (not really) they also want to get this part of our OS also under their control. But this time we have a huge lever to push through all of the rights of C.S. and our corporation.

Do not be fooled by those liars and serious criminals (e.g. criminal copyright infringement, blackmailing, wire fraud, securities fraud, commercial fraud, cliquism, corruption, conspiracy, plot, and so on), who have a totally different agenda than the benefit for the public or compliance, which is infringing and getting control over the rights and properties of other entities, specifically infringing the rights and properties, and damaging the goals and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation, including our SOPR.

We would like to recommend to all those bad actors to leave the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as the OntoLand (OL), As Soon As Possible Or Better Said Immediately (ASAPOBSI) and not merely the member states of the European Union (EU).
Anyway, we will make short or quick work of those entities.

See also once again the notes and clarification

By the way:

• 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),

are effective and therefore this is the compromise, which does not need further debate and further negotiation. Period.

26.May.2023

00:54 UTC+2
SOPR has reviewed discounts

*** Work in progress - decision missing, but obvious ***
Our Ontologic System (OS) is too important

in a way, which is positive, constructive, and reasonable, and therefore we have to

• benefits of our creations are maximized and
• harms of them are minimized.

As an introduction to the subject matter, we summarize the relevant informations given in the past.
The demands or preconditions for allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS comprise the following:

• written admission of guilt in relation to all illegal acts, which are considered to be illegal in accordance with our designation of illegal action, and deposition of it in a joint safe for 20 years
• waiver of guarantee for an out-of-court agreement,
• complete
  • restoration of rights, integrities, and reputations,
  • restitution of properties,
  • restoration of momenta, as well as missed business possibilities, and follow-up opportunities, and
  • reappraisal of illegal activities,
• down payment of 10% of the (estimated) triple damage compensations, which are due since the 1st of January 1999 in accordance with our calculations based on the complete set of documents provided by a liable party,
• immediate stop, phase out, and removal of all support and conduction of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS),
• official statement that all support for Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) organizations, projects, etc., and every membership in FOSHS organizations, projects, etc. will be terminated As Soon As Possible Or Better Said Immediately (ASAP OBSI), which are considered to be illegal in accordance with our designation of illegal FOSHS organization, project, etc.,
• handover or transfer of all illegal matters, which are considered to be illegal in accordance with our designation of illegal matter, and
• commitment to comply with stricter regulations, and also
• horizontal separation of control and responsibility, and also management and orchestration and not a vertical separation anymore,

• common backbone, core network, or fabric of our Ontoverse (Ov) respectively
  • Ontologic Net (ON),
  • Ontologic Web (OW), and
  • Ontologic uniVerse (OV),
• backbones, core networks, or fabrics, including
  • geograhy and location specific,
  • jurisdiction specific,
  • utilization specific, and
  • all other specific backbones, core networks, or fabrics (see the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021 (Note that the list is only indicative and is not up to date.),
• subsystems and platforms, including
  • Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platforms, also wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) (services) platforms, etc.,
    • Ontologic Office (OntoO) environment,
    • Ontologic Enterprise (OntoE) environment, and
    • all other OAOS,
  • Trust Management System (TMS),
  • IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS),
  • Consent Management System (CMS or ConsMS),
  • Ontologic Financial System (OFinS),
  • Ontologic Trustworthy System (OTwS or OTrustS),
  • Communication and Collaboration System (CoCoS or Co²S),
  • Media System (MS),
  • Video Game System (VGS),
  • Online Advertising (OAdv),
  • Electronic Commerce (EC) with Marketplace for Everything (MfE) for
    • public signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms, and open signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms sources respectively publicly available signal streams and datasets, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms, and openly available signal streams and datasets, informations, knowledge bases, belief 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, belief bases, models, and algorithms,
  • Ontologic Geographic Information System (OntoGIS),
    • OntoMap, OntoGlobe/OntoEarth, OntoGIS,
  • Positioning or Location System, Navigation System, and Tracking or Locating System,
  • Hyper Connectivity System (HCS),
  • all other subsystems and platforms (see the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021 (Note that the list is only indicative and is not up to date.),
• inclusion of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) and as a Service (aaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx) with exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and therefore no what is wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog (GCEF) (services) platforms, etc.,
• brokerage or mediation,
• interoperability,
• coherent ontologic model, including ontologies, and other foundation models, foundational models, capability and operational models
  • Machine Learning Models (MLMs),
  • Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs),
  • Modular Models (MMs or ModMs),
  • Multimodal Models (MMs or MulMs),
  • Large Language Models (LLMs),
  • Conversation Models (CMs),
• and so on,

and

• no damaging of the goals or even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation,

and

• 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).

The general criteria for granting one or more discounts are the extent to which we get our

• democracy, and
• rule-based law and order,

• basic rights and freedoms in an ideal democracy,
• works of art created by C.S.,
• regulations of overlaps and interfaces with public and federal duties, tasks, and services,
• etc.,

• compliance with the national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• compliance with the legal terms and conditions of our SOPR,
• transfer of all illegal materials,
• etc.,

• respect and protection of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• respect of the sovereingty,
• demonstration of good behaviour respectively goodwill, and
• commitment and support for our SOPR.

and

Conversely, the particular criteria for refusing a discount are the following:

• mimicking C.S. and our corporation,
• claiming for the visions, creations, inventions, achievements, and pioneering works of C.S. as own ones and telling other entities unlawful nonsense,
• exploiting the goodwill of C.S. and our corporation,
• damaging the reputations of C.S. and our corporation,
• damaging the goals of C.S. and our corporation
  • exploiting the neutrality, fairness, interoperability, transparency, integrity, security, safety, etc. of our SOPR,
  • disturbing the other business activities of our corporation not related to our SOPR.
• damaging the integrities of C.S. and our corporation,
• questioning the competences and powers of C.S. and our corporation, and
• frustrating the momenta of C.S. and our corporation,
• interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectivel Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))),

• stealing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) of C.S. and our corporation,
• controlling and managing the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and
• damaging the values of properties owned by C.S. and our corporation.

Correspondingly, we have 8 discounts 8 x 1.25% = 10.00% or only 7 discounts 7 x 1.25% = 8.75%.

In case of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class, the royalties are a

as set with the issue SOPR #33z of the 13th of August 2021.

If all criteria are agreed, supported, and fulfilled as discussed, then we might

16:40 UTC+2
Altman is totally incompetent

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 the proposed regulations of Bionics of governments: "In view of a new law regulating artificial intelligence, the head of OpenAI had threatened to withdraw from the European market. Today, the ChatGPT operator Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and generative and creative Bionics plagiarist and implementer rowed back. [...] In doing so, he reversed his threat from Wednesday to turn his back on the European market in view of the planned regulations for artificial intelligence (AI).

EU does not want to be intimidated
[...] "But we need more clarity." We should wait and see how AI develops further and only then should the state intervene.
His threat to leave Europe had drawn criticism from EU industry chief Thierry Breton and a number of other lawmakers. Altman had spent the past week touring Europe and meeting with top politicians in France, Spain, Poland, Germany, and the U.K. to discuss the future of AI and the progress of ChatGPT. He called his tour a "very productive week of conversations in Europe about how best to regulate AI".
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we have to make crystal clear once again that it is not about an intimidation of a government or a commission, but the enforcement of them to comply with the

being effective.
Somehow, we have again the impression that the EU also does not want to comply with its own legal acts since more than 25 years now in the case of C.S. and our corporation.

We also note that the issue is much too complex for Sam Altman, who in addition is incompetent in every other sense as well.

Last but not least, we note the obvious next affront and impudence by representatives of member states of the European Union (EU) with those conversations instead of the required communications with us.
Howsoever, this will be resolved in the course of our lawsuits and corresponding legal actions.

See also the notes

27.May.2023

12:59 and 14:30 UTC+2
Legal and reasonable regulation of Bionics

A regulation of the field of 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) in relation to

is considered as legal and reasonable by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), because these concerns are compatible to the exclusive rights of C.S., specifically basic rights, personal rights, freedom of expression, moral rights, property rights, copyrights, including the exclusive rights for

etc., whereby the personal freedoms and rights of C.S. and the commercial freedoms and rights of our corporation constitute the legal guardrails for any bill or act, which governments have to navigate very carefully to avoid any infringement of said freedoms and rights.
It is not that only governments decide, while we have already shown that everything we do is constitutional and legal, so that we do not have a wishlist of control freaks, self-exposers, or bad actors, but checks and balances, and limits of the powers as it should be.
Is not it?

But neither a new bill or act, nor an agency for the utilization of Bionics is required, because these concerns and their existing legal regulations already have legal scopes, which include Bionic technologies as well.
Furthermore, public and private entities have a very own interest to

Even the transparency regarding the training data is subject to competiton law in general and trade secret in particular, and therefore not subject of a regulation.
But if a

• Large Language Models (LLMs),
• Machine Learning Models (MLMs),
• Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs),
• Modular Models (MMs or ModMs),
• Multimodal Models (MMs or MulMs),

or

does not give the informations to our SOPR, then our SOPR will label said models and OAOS accordingly, so that a

All is kept in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also know as OntoLand (OL), including the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR with the horizontal separation of control and responsibility, and also management and orchestration, as well.
It is that easy.

In this relation, we noticed once again that prominent entities are totally incompetent and had no clue in the past until C.S. created our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) in 1998 to 1999 and our Ontologic System (OS) in 2000 to 2005, which is an art, science, and attorney-proven, publicly real-time documented, and court-proof fact, and they still have no clue how it works and how to go on, but are so bold to even claim wrongly that "there is an unexpected acceleration" and "[t]his technology is coming into our lives much, much faster than anything we've seen before".
Nonsense, it is relatively old hightech of us and all those plagiarists, fraudsters, and even serious criminals needed so many years to get only this specific part called generative and creative Bionics running on their computers by merely applying brute force.
Also note that none of them is talking about logics, mathematics, informatics, cybernetics, physics, thermodynamics, Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT), and so on in contrast to the works of art of C.S..

By the way:

18:05 UTC+2
ChatGPT and Co. are AI crap, aka. NonsenseBots

The whole picture is already very clear, but now the details become sharper as well.
Microsoft, OpenAI, Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), IBM, and Co. have developed utter bull$#!+ with what is wrongly called generative AI to steal the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and confuse the public about their true origin once again, as they did before with what is wrongly called

As we said, they merely compressed everything in a trained Artificial Neural Network (ANN), which generates realistic responses by making guesses about which fragments of text should follow other sequences, based on a statistical model, also called Large Language Model (LLM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), and foundation model, that has ingested billions of examples of text pulled from all over the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW). Indeed, the ANN respectively statistical model appears to have discerned most if not all basic grammars, sentences, texts, task commands, and labyrinthine frameworks of anything in written form, which is one of the many original and unique characteristics of this specific part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), but also populates them with fakes and facts from an omnium gatherum, smorgasbord, and hodgepodge of existing related and unrelated contents, which our masterpieces created by C.S. do not.
Let us call their implementations NonsenseBots.

All mistakes, that can be made, will be made, including the mistake to solve old mistakes with the same old ones by repeating them. In this relation, we also recalled the old saying: The dog $#!+s only on the big pile.
For sure, they do know these technological facts, specifically the facts about the

and also that they have to apply more dirty tricks to

Therefore, they are telling the whole world, specifically the governments, other decision makers of their cliques, other participants of their conspiracies, and also other members of the unknown public that their AI crap must be regulated, despite the

while they are hoping that they get the control over the market and establish another monopoly or grow an existing monopoly by continued research and development, as well as fraud and crime respectively copying and stealing.
Clever (not really).

Now, they are improving the

Obviously, they are continuing with simulating a technological progress stealing our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) in particular and our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), in general, as not expected otherwise.
And we are continuing with documenting the evidences and preparing a lot of legal complaints, lawsuits, and so on.

By the way:

28.May.2023

10:45 UTC+2
Laws are already compromise and contract

The laws are already the compromise and the contract.
And there will be no bending of existing laws and no fabricating of new laws being introduced and no breaching of contract being entered just only to support the incompetences of certain groups and individuals, fulfill the wishes of anti-social minorities, and grow illegal monopolies.

29.May.2023

19:41 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

Ontological Art™

19:41 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

Without any doubt, the art movement, which is (wrongly) called physical and digital art or phygital art, is based on our original and unique masterpiece titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and therefore

which has nothing in common with a specific phygital, cybernetical, or ontological artwork in this regard, and hence means nor fair dealing and fair use exclusion of the copyright of C.S..

Indeed, multimedia art already existed several decades before, but no multimedia work of art has all basic properties in contrast to our Ontologic System (OS) with its fusion of realities as our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and basic properties and components, including the

• Augmented Reality (AR),
• Virtual Reality (VR), and
• Mixed Reality (MR),

which proves the originality and uniqueness of our entirely new OS and our entirely new Ontological Art movement.

Referencing of C.S. is always required, because C.S. is the founder of the Ontological Art, including the phygital art, according to the statements, explanations, and other publications of artists, gallerists, exhibitors, collectors, institutions, organizations, companies, individuals, and other members of the interested public, as not expected and claimed otherwise.

"Do you think [Ontological, including digital and] phygital is the future of art?" Of course Ontologic Art is the way everything transitions in(to) our Ontoverse (Ov), including all arts, including analog arts, which will be experienced as truly real with all senses, feelings, and emotions.
For example, one cannot only see for example da Vinci's painting known as Mona Lisa all alone in a museum, but also speak, dance, and do whatsoever together with her.
Our Ontologic Art movement is eliminating all limits and breaking all boundaries. Guess why C.S. called it Ontologic System and Ontoverse.
And this is only the beginnig. :)

We also recall that according to the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) have to be traded on the related subsystem and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR, specifically the Marketplace for Everything (MfE).

Please keep 100% provenance, so that our SOPR is able to calculate and needs not to estimate, and collect our royalties.
An entity, that refuses to pay its fair share will be blacklisted in our totally new Ontoverse (Ov).

Our moral rights (e.g. exploitation rights (e.g. commercialzation rights (e.g. monetization rights))) and copyrights are court-proof.

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

30.May.2023

14:47 and 16:52 UTC+2
Debate about Bionics regulation over for us

Just for the fun of copy and paste:

The

are crystal clear, everything has been said, and everybody has been characterized either as the good actor, artist, copyright holder, etc., or busted as the usual and known bad actor, fraudster, criminal, self-exposer, doomer, moron, etc., and therefore we will not continue with the debate about the topic of the regulation of the field of Bionics, including the fields of Artifiical Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc., and definitely we will not debate on the level of climate activists and Greta.
Going on with the topic of Bionics regulation is a waste of time and will not change the status quo.

In case of the bad actors, we have already proven that

Furthermore, we already busted their support and demand for a regulation of Bionics as an

We quote a report, which is about an open letter in relation to the regulation of Bionics: "A group of industry leaders is planning to warn on Tuesday that the artificial intelligence technology they are building may one day pose an existential threat to humanity and should be considered a societal risk on par with pandemics and nuclear wars.
[...]
Eventually, some believe, A.I. could become powerful enough that it could create societal-scale disruptions within a few years if nothing is done to slow it down, though researchers sometimes stop short of explaining how that would happen.
These fears are shared by numerous industry leaders, putting them in the unusual position of arguing that a technology they are building - and, in many cases, are furiously racing to build faster than their competitors - poses grave risks and should be regulated more tightly."

Comment
What a hypocrisy and confusion of those bad entities.
They are those, who have "sacrificed safety to reach the next big thing before its competitors and to steal our show and property, as usual" and again and again.

They are those, who also have the problems that they

We already mentioned that their actions are becoming more half-baked, improvised, and even crude and blunt, because they are fighting without any legal ground, but with a blunt blade and the back against the wall. Now one can see how they are already beginnig to cry and grouch.
They are also those, who have messed up a perfect agreement with a royalty of just only 5% of the revenue and virtually no extraordinary strings attached, they have messed up our perfect creations, artworks, and solutions, and now they are messing up the social and societal harmony, piece, rule-based law and order, and so on.

They are also those, who refuse to comply with

The only reason for all that recent blah blah blah is that they refuse to comply with

That is all so ridiculous and pathetic.
Now stoking fears to reach political and economical goals is a very well known tactical trick of extremist entities and parties, which should ring all bells of every politician and all other members of the public.

Those entities

Either they

It is that simply. :)

See also once again the notes and clarification

19:11 UTC+2
Style of Speed Further steps

When looking at the utilization of a specific technology, we concluded that we already have the solution for a problem, which we thought would be very hard to solve for various reasons.

But a funny point is that we are not sure at this moment, if we still need this solution at all due to our technological progress and new solutions and ... new problems.

In this relation, we also got the confirmation that our visionary approach truly works in practice.

This is all very impressive even for us as the original creators, inventors, pioneers, and disruptors.

20:40 UTC+2
Nvidia still in LaLaLand

The company Nvidia gets no license for its partial plagiarims of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and OntoBlender components also wrongly called generative AI and content engine, and our Ontoverse (Ov) of our original and unique masterpiece titled our Ontologic System and created by C.S.. Instead Nividia and Co. and their customers have to use the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) as any other entity.

Please also note that there are no other systems, also wrongly called generative AI systems, but only our original and unique OntoBot.

We also note that Nvidia overvalued by 400 to 500%

Nvidia made a profit of around 2 billion U.S. Dollar in the last fiscal quarter. So its reasonable value is around 200 to 250 billion U.S. Dollar, considering its growth potential and our royalties, but definitely not more.
But there are huge dynamics.

So we have an AI bubble after the crypto and metaverse bubbles, which shows the underlying fundamental problem: They are based on the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and the incompetencies of the fraudulent and even serious criminal entities.

Do not be fooled by the lying press and every entities, that makes money by hyping that, including Nvidia.

By the way:

21:58 UTC+2
WPP still in LaLaLand

The company gets no license for its plagiarism of our OntoBlender and its integration with our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), but has to use the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the related subsystems and platforms and also the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platform for the creation of its Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).

In addition, media, advertisers, marketeers, etc. have to use the Consent Management System (CMS) of our SOPR for personalized, targeted advertising. Guess why our SOPR keeps the whole OS under its control and responsibility, and also management and orchestration.

WPP's latest move classifies the company as a member of the industry with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class at least.

22:56 UTC+2
Clarification

We quote a report, which is about our generative and creative Bionics and related copyright issues: "[...]
The amazing thing about generative AI is it can create any image, or song, or text, that you want, it will be unique. But it won't really be new, because it will have learned how to do that through all those existing content and images. So in many ways, this is still very interesting, because [the partnership of the company Nvidia with the companies Shutterstock and Getty Images] gets ahead of this [copyright] debate, I think.
[...]"

Comment
Of course, that last statement is just plain wrong, because our original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use

are themselves already transformative works of art, specficially in relation to all these training data, and therefore enjoy the fair dealing and fair use exclusion of the copyright.

The legal situation reminds us of copying an entire photo to use it as a thumbnail in online search results of the Google Images (previously Google Image Search) search engine, which was ruled around 14 years ago, and the legal case Kelly vs. Arriba Soft Corporation, which was ruled in 2003, and won by the defendants Google and Arriba Soft. How should image search work otherwise, ruled the judge at that time in the case of Google.
The judge also argued that the data and informations, materials, contents, works, etc. are publicly available respectively publicly accessible and if a copyright holder does not want that another entity uses her, his, or their publicly available properties, then one should configure the own website or webpage accordingly, for example by adding a login to it. We also add the use of the specific HyperText Markup Language (HTML) meta tag robots (e.g. <meta name="robots" content="noindex" />).
The argument that the opportunity to be found via a search engine is an advantage for a copyright holder was not relevant to the ruling.
Furthermore, in both cases the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, which falls in the factor about amount and substantiality of fair use.
Therefore, we argue how should our transformative, generative and creative Bionics work otherwise.

This also means that C.S. and only C.S. is free to do it, to present it, to perform it, to reproduce it, to discuss it, and to commercialize it exclusively and even without paying royalties to the copyright holders of already existing original and copyrighted works of art, the latter is exactly like in case of the company Alphabet (Google) with its Google Images and other (image) search engine platforms, that do not need to pay, but not any other entity, like for example Microsoft with OpenAI, Alphabet Google with Anthropic, Nvidia with Shutterstock and Getty Images, Apple, Spotify, Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Nintendo, Activision Blizzard, and so on, because our generative and creative Bionics is not (a technology based on) a database with a User Interface (UI) for retrieval, such as a search engine platform with a webpage.
Also note that C.S. has not created our OntoBot as an alternative to earlier works of art and their monetization, and therefore Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation does not apply (see the note SOPR studied Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation of the 19th of May 2023).
In case of any doubt we highly recommend to ask a truly competent attorny or judge, who will explain and confirm the legal situation once again.

But as a compromise, we also offer to

under the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), if all of our demands are met by said other entities.
It is time for all decision makers, artists, collecting societies, and other entities in the creative industries to finally switch on their brains and comply with the

By the way:

• why the companies WPP and Nvidia are conspiring with each other and those other companies (see the notes WPP still in LaLaLand and Nvidia still in LaLaLand of today),
• why certain entities are more and more running rampant and becoming beserk, and
• why eventually all these entities concerned and affected will partner with our SOPR.

31.May.2023

00:11, 00:43, and 01:43 UTC+2
Scale AI still in LaLaLand

Once again, no AI kiddies and no AI crap are allowed in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL).

Furthermore, raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms have to be traded on the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) exclusively.

That company has even not understood how the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and our generative and creative Bionics work, and what the true problems are, which is definitely not the quality of the training data, but our extremely creative, ingenious, and powerful expression of functional and operational idea.
Therefore, it is really a very bad idea to decrease the probability of a failure by increasing more and more the quantity. We already had the same nonsense with the crypto kiddies and the crypto crap, specifically with that illegal cryptocurrency Bitcoin based on our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), which was also solved by increasing more and more the quantity (e.g. computing power).
In this case one needs also logics, mathematics, ontologics, and so on, which is comparable to take a different consensus protocol for example from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) or Proof-of-Knowledge (PoK) respectively brute force to validated and verified, and proof-carrying. In fact, this has been said in relation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and perfected with our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS).

By the way:

07:56 UTC+2
Despite alleged extinction from AI, none stopped

Despite the alleged extinction of humanity from 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.), none of all those SuperSmart™ entities has stopped. That is so ridiculous and already tells it all.

Also observe how the whole public relation full of flat and populistic phrases has been designed and is executed, eventually fighting misinformation with misinformation.
Now let us wait until the self-proclaimed Center for AI Safety will also become a private company, like we have seen before with that fake Non-Profit Organization (NPO) OpenAI.
What a cheap playbook. It reminds us of all those self-proclaimed experts on social media platforms or video platforms, like for example Youtube and TikTok.

They presented no scientific proof for their claims, the alleged risks, and so on, in total contrast to for example the climate change and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.
But we presented a lot of evidences that they are not trustworthy.

There is also no breakneck pace and acceleration in which the technology is developing. In fact, C.S. presented our Evoos in 1999 and our OS in 2006, and AI, ML, CI, ANN, etc. are even older.
No, the true motivation and intention is something different and has to do with having significant personal deficits and infringing the rights and propertise of C.S. and our corporation. Just follow the money in this case as well and this website of OntomaX to find only the usual bad actors.

And we already repeated several times that we already have our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and its Terms of Services (ToS).
See once again the notes

And what on Earth has the Ontoscope plagiarism Apple iPhone with nuclear war in common? We do not get it.

We already got the support by a second large economic zone, which is not the so-called Five Eyes group, to continue with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and act forcefully at the courts against fraudulent and even serious criminal entities, because they are short before crossing the line of terrorism.

22:26, 23:25 and 24:01 UTC+2
SOPR introduced U.S.American win-win policy

*** Sketching mode ***
By ignoring

the U.S.America and other members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance (U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) have put themselves on the same level like for example the P.R.China and our SOPR will handle these countries accordingly, which means that the Chinese win-win policy, including the

though we may take more decisive steps.

If a joint action is required, then we have our SOPR and our other Societies with their exclusive infrastructures with their set of

It is absolutely common sense that

and simultaneously

is contradictive and destructive and therefore does not provide a trustworthy ground for other than the inevitable cooperations and joint activities.

We can only repeat that C.S. is not the Queen of Hawaii and our corporation is not Texas, New Mexico, Hawaii, Palestine, or any other territory, which is free to claim, to occupy, or to annex.

The same holds for the members states of the European Union (EU) to a significant extent, because they have also hardly blotted themselves with glory.

We are prepared for this since many years, very well knowing that the U.S.America and the P.R.China will risk a full fledged and tangible trade war even with their closest partners to get the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation under the control of their governments and cliques.

See once again the notes

22:25, 22:48, and 23:48 UTC+2
Regulation of Bionics no legal loophole

See once again the note Debate about Bionics regulation over for us of the 30th of May 2023.

Get that into your brains. A potential regulation of 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), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) does not change anything in relation to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, including our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), or said in other words, no other entity gets any control over our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its

• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), including
  • smart contract transaction properties and protocols,
  • generative and creative Bionics,
  • Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA),
• Ontologic Scope (OntoScope), including
  • Ontologic Collaborative Ontologic Virtual Environment (OntoCOVE), including
    • Mixed Reality (MR),
    • eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR),
    • Augmented Reality (MR),
    • Virtual Reality (MR),
    • Semantic Reality (SR or SemR),
    • Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR),
• Ontologic File System (OntoFS), including
  • Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability (ACID),
  • blockchain technique,
• Ontologic Core (OntoCore),
• OntoNet,
• OntoWeb and
• OntoVerse,
• Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind),
• OntoBlender,
• OntoGIS,
• OntoMap,
• OntoGlobe and OntoEarth,

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),

to name just some few of the original and unique, essential items.

And there are no other AI systems, but our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), which have not come to light in the last few months.
And there is no other authority, agency, institute, organization, or society than our SOPR, which is the one and only centralized point to go to, because C.S. has the right to decide this and has decided this.
And for sure, we will not introduce any Application Programming Interface (API), which will only be exploited in illegal ways by the supertrolls. All the required system layers, APIs, and other structural or architectural elements are kept internally and reside in the OS in accordance with the integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies in accordance with the Terms of Services (ToS) of our SOPR.

This is not debatable and discussable, because the law is already the compromise. And we will enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation at the courts worldwide.

By the way:

• impose a federal action or even conduct an expropriation in general and
• change the status quo regarding the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in particular.

All the others are running in circles.