Legal matter
Recently, four large companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector were questioned in a hearing by representatives of the U.S.American congress. With regard to this hearing, we note the following points:

• holds absolutely correct views regarding legal rights, specifically company rights and digital rights, and
• merely demands terms and conditions that are
  • Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC), specifically the demands for royalties, raw signals and data, and metadata of utilization, and in addition
  • truly pro bono publico==for the public good.

• sign our agreement,
• comply with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) with the License Model (LM), and also
• consider our takeover offers

unreservedly, so that the wrongdoings already identified will not be amplified and no additional dimensions of misconduct will be added.

from all designated members and licensees of our SOPR worldwide until the end of the year.

Legal matter [Infrastructure]
When investigating and analyzing the technologies, goods, and services of so-called Cloud Service Providers (CSPs or CloudSPs), or correctly said Ontologic Net Providers (ONPs), Ontologic Web Providers (OWPs), and Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs), {our SOPR is the only Ontologic uniVerse Provider (OVP), or more correctly said Ontologic System Providers (OSPs)} then we found out that in particular private and proprietary solutions based on our Ontologic System (OS) are suitable to realize an illegal Ontologic subSystem (OsubS) and to circumvent our SOPR in this way, for example on the basis of

between customers and CSPs (see also the section Interoperability of the issue #293 of the 26th of July 2020).

A deeper consideration about this unacceptable problem suggested at first that the separation line runs between the face to a

But when looking at the services provided by CSPs it became clear, that such an indicator for separation does not work either.

No artistic aspect versus artistic aspect is more convincing
as part of the social and societal compromise the modification for opening our original Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os), and allowing and licensing any performance and reproduction of them was essentially technical in order to retain (as much as possible of) the original and unique, personal expression performed, created, presented, and discussed with our OS and our Os.
These works of art already got damages by said modification and the results of a further modification would not be the works of art anymore.
This raises the question once again why we should destroy our works of art without any cause or reason.
Due to this reason and the reasons that

the exclusive power of control and management of our SOPR remains.

License Model (LM)
The proposed revision of the License Model (LM) as discussed in recent issues {links to former issues missing} is structured by

• application and service,
• platform, and
• infrastructure,

and already looks good.
Please note that our defintions of the terms infrastructure, platform, and application and service do not correspond to the definitions of the related as a Service (aaS) capability models and operational models {links to former issues missing}.

The progression of royalty is calculated as discussed in recent issues {links to former issues missing}:
For each additional

relative share + 0.2% of the overall revenue.

Above

relative share + 10% of the overall revenue.

5 classes of licensee

• non-industrial sectors without ICT

• Public and Federal Institutes (PFIs) without ICT
• State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) without ICT

• PFIs with ICT
• SOEs with ICT
• non-industrial sectors with ICT
• non-ICT industrial sectors without ICT

• non-ICT industrial sectors (e.g. physics, chemistry, biology engineering) with ICT

• Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector

Terms with or without ICT

• technology or good is not based on ICT, but has one or more
  • features or parts based on ICT, or
  • services based on ICT,

  or

• service is not based on ICT, but utilizes one or more
  • technologies or goods based on ICT, or
  • services based on ICT

Class	app or service	platform	infrastructure	difference
1	0.60	2.80	5.00	2.20
2	2.20	5.10	8.00	2.90
3	3.80	7.40	11.00	3.60
4	5.40	9.70	14.00	4.30
5	7.00	12.00	17.00	5.00
Δ	1.60	2.30	3.00	0.70

All values in %.
All percent values With All Discounts Granted (WADG) if not said otherwise.

Interesting is the fact that more and more technologies, goods, and services become digitalized and accordingly the assignments to the licensee classes change.
We will address this development in a timely manner.

Further steps
More and more matters are already put into discretionary or confidentiality mode respectively are not communicated in public anymore.

04.August.2020

Clarification

We quote an encyclopedia about statute of limitations and copyright: "Continuing-violations doctrine
In tort law, if any person or entity commits a series of illegal acts against another person or entity (or in criminal law if a defendant commits a continuing crime) the limitation period may begin to run from the last act in the series. The entire chain of events can be tolled if the violations were continuing. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has explained that the continuing-violations doctrine "tolls the statute of limitations in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to discriminatory acts occurring over a period of time, as long as at least one incident of discrimination occurred within the limitations period." Whether the continuing-violations doctrine applies to a particular violation is subject to judicial discretion; it was said to apply to copyright infringement in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit, but not in the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit."

Obviously, the continuing-violations doctrine applies in case of the original and unique works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S., because the infringements of our rights are still done today.
In this relation, we also mention that

08.August.2020

11:00 and 20:00 UTC+2
SOPR #295

*** Work in progress - infrastructure related content is not ready ***
Topics

Legal matter
The rules of a Software as a Service (SaaS) provider respectively an app(lication) store operator prohibit applications if their main purpose is

Correspondingly, we would like to recall that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

• copying our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV),
• copying our Ontoscope (Os),
• mimicking our SOPR, or
• damaging the goals or even threatening the integrity of our SOPR,

• registration of services and their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs),
• unrestricted access to raw signals and data, and
• exclusive trade of raw signals and data, informations, knowledge, models, and algorithms on the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of our SOPR,

and

• based on our OS and our Os,
• jointly utilized by all members and licensees of our SOPR, and
• are not objects of competition.

Legal matter [Infrastructure]
We have relaxed the regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) in relation to the

but now we have to reconsider all of our related decisions once again.

With their

at least the P.R.China, the Russian Federation, the U.S.of America, and also the European Union are working against the idea of an open and global Internet and World Wide Web and also our original and unique idea of an open and global OS.
For example:

As we made clear multiple times in the past, we

In case

then we will either

as will be the case with any other government, that act in illegal ways.
Ideally, the infrastructure of our SOPR is viewed like a diplomatic embassy.

Honestly, we were waiting for such a move all the years, but only by happenstance we learned in the last hours that such an expropriation of our rights has already happened.
In detail, the cyber security law in the P.R.China also only allows local companies to own and operate cloud computing infrastructure. But this is in parts our ON, OW, and OV respectively Ontologic Computing (OC) infrastructure exclusively kept under the power of control of and managed by our SOPR.

This also shows once again that Free and Open Source Hardware and Software (FOSHS) and open standards are nonsense, when it ends in private, proprietary, restricted, and closed infrastructure.

Legal matter [Media System (MS)]
"I thought that, you know, the press in particular was informing, but I [am] now convinced factually that the press has only one objective, which is to shape opinions and to distort information in a way that allows [them] to shape an opinion," said [Moncef] Slaoui. "And I find that unethical, extremely disappointing. And I really hope society will drive towards changing that back to more normalcy."
We thought exactly the them around 20 years ago, but now we do already known that the latter undoubtedly requires more than just hope.

Furthermore, the Ontologic System was created by C.S. to also discuss an alternative society, including the ways politics and media are done, specifically in relation to telling the truth. A modification of the media related part would destroy the expression of this work of art and therefore an enforcement of such a modification is considered to be not legal and surely not desireable.

As a consequence,

• Media System (MS) and
• Social and Societal System (SSS),

in the

License Model (LM)
Due to the reasons that

• print media (newspapers, newsmagazines, etc.),
• broadcast news (radio and television), and
• Internet and World Wide Web (WWW) (online newspapers, news blogs, news videos, live news streaming, etc.),

we classify the news media as non-ICT industrial sector with ICT.

Infrastructure
We do it right just right from the start, and therefore our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) provides the management structure and the infrastructure with their facilities, systems, platforms, and services, as well as economics, that are common for all members and licensees of our SOPR and are including for example our

• Universe Name Service (UNS) (describable as cyber-physical Domain Name Service (cpDNS), which provides spatial anchors for Mediated Reality (MedR), including Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR), also wrongly called MedR cloud, AR cloud, VR cloud, and MR cloud,
• Domain Name Service (DNS) (virtual DNS or vDNS),
• time signal service, or Global Timing System amd Universal Timing System, and
• space service, or Global Positioning System (GPS) and Universal Positioning System (UPS),

These structures will be introduced with the new features of our ON, OW, and OV (see also the section Interoperability of the issue #293 of the 26th of July 2020) as part of their continued development.

P.R.China [Measures]
The copyright and other rights of C.S. and our corporation, and the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) also apply for the cyber sovereignty of our sovereign space OntoVerse, aka. OntoLand, and therefore allow our SOPR itself to take the same measure as another sovereign entity takes in its sovereign territory.
Consequently, for the

our SOPR forbids Chinese companies from

These measures will not be the subject of any consideration and debate until our rights are fully and unreservedly respected.
We also have to recall that the utilization of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) for the mass surveillance and oppression of citizens is not allowed. , and

As usual, damage compensations, admission fees, and outstanding royalties can be used to offset our costs for the acquisitions of

Please note, that not all discounts are granted (see also the related section in the issue #293 of the 26th of July 2020).

By the way: This measures also effect the business units TikTok of the company Bytedance and WeChat of the company Tencent, as well as China Telecom (Europe) and China Telecom (America), Alibaba, Huawei, ZTE, Xiaomi, HTC Corporation, Lenovo, Acer, and all other Chinese companies.
We love China and its way of win-win.

Hopefully, other countries and union of states are not falling prey to any illusions as well.

09.August.2020

00:00 and 11:11 UTC+2
SOPR #296

*** Work in progress - infrastructure related content is not ready ***
Topics
This issue continues the discussion that was began in the issue #293 of the 26th of July 2020 and continued in the issue #294 of the 1st of August 2020:

Legal matter
Growing and having a monopoly is not illegal. It merely becomes illegal when it is not pro bono publico==for the public good anymore. Therefore, we have at least 15 to 20 years to exploit our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os), and develop our related enterprises as we want to and without any interference, restriction, and so on before an entitiy, specifically the larger companies that had such a period of unregulated growth as well, can complain at the market regulators or a lawmaker can demand a further action.

Legal matter [Infrastructure]
Since the issue #293 of the 26th of July 2020, we were looking

we have to put the axe on public private proprietary clouds, or being precise illegal realizations and implementations of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) by other entities without allowance in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Services (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
As we already said in the referenced former issues, the large Cloud Service Providers (CSPs or CloudSPs), or correctly said Ontologic Net Providers (ONPs), Ontologic Web Providers (OWPs), and Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs) are creating private and proprietary solutions, including infrastructures with facilities and services, devices, and economic systems, on the basis of our Ontologic System (OS), that are suitable to realize an illegal Ontologic subSystem (OsubS) and to circumvent our SOPR in this way.
In addition, they worked against our interests for example by developing and providing goods and services that would complicate or even preclude the

The Communications Service Providers (CSPs or ComSPs), including the Telecommunications Service Providers (TSPs, telecoms, or telecos), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and the Web Service Providers (WSPs), and the CloudSPs, are knowing exactly what our corporation and our SOPR is doing and what they are doing in response. Without handling the related properties in accordance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR, we have to view their actions as damaging the goals and even threatening the integrity of our SOPR and therefore refuse to allow and license any performance and reproduction of our OS and our Os. But we guess that they are knowing this as well.

Specifically the activities of the company Microsoft look like an attempt to repeat the illegal monopoly practices in relation to Windows operating system (os) with Graphical User Interface (GUI) vs. Apple os with GUI based on Atari os with GUI, and Internet Explorer web browser vs. Netscape web browser, now with Microsoft Universal Windows Platform (UWP) and Azure Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC) platform vs. Ontologic System (OS).
The same impression is given with the activities of the company Alphabet (Google) that look like an attempt to repeat illegal monopoly practices in relation to Google online service vs. online services and Android os and One Handset Alliance vs. OntoLix and OntoLinux OS and Ontoscope, now with Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) vs. OS.
We can assure Microsoft, Alphabet, and anybody else that this will not going to happen (any longer) and history will not repeat in unwanted ways, because those activities will become legal or will be terminated in the next weeks.
Eventually, a mix of artistic, common, private, and public interests, demands, and other aspects is guiding our decision what is kept under the power of control.

Once again, we address technologies, goods, and services related to Microsoft Azure as examples in case the whole company or only the business unit Microsoft Azure is not taken over by Ontonics. The same holds for all other CloudSPs but also ComSPs, including TSPs, ISPs, and WSPs.

There will also be change at the TSPs and ISPs, specifically so-called cloud connectivity service providers, when the management structure of our ON, OW, and OV, and the infrastructure of our SOPR inclusive our Superstructure will be introduced with the new features of our ON, OW, and OV (see also the section Interoperability of the referenced issues) as part of the continued development in telecommunication technology, specifically in connection with

which will become more converged and integrated making the result more like GCEFC computing than traditional network management, or being precise making it Ontologic Net (ON) management, Ontologic Computing (OC), and so on (see also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of today).

At this point, we would like to give the reminder that we intent to

OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps

We continued with looking at the possibilities of utilizing specific networking standards and protocols related to our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) (see also the Further steps of the 20th of July 2020) for

• planning, forecasting, or predicting,
• organizing,
• commanding,
• orchestrating,
• coordinating,
• controlling, and
• monitoring,

• routing,
• switching,
• bridging,
• meshing
  • managing
    • orchestrating,
    • coordinating,
    • controlling, and
    • monitoring,
• and so on,

the

of our Ontologic System (OS) and for the related

• control (plane or space) and
• data ((transport) plane or space).

Further activities researching and developing new possibilities.

Especially interesting for us in this conjunction are the combinations, convergences, and integrations of the fields of

• Software-Defined-Wide Area Network(ing) (SD-WAN),

with each other and with techniques of the field of telecommunications networks, including for example

which are

12.August.2020

Ontonics Further steps

Besides the at least 51% of shares of all Chinese companies, that want to perform and reproduce our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) outside the P.R.China, we have selected some more companies as takeover candidates. One of these selections would be quite surprising, one would be quite smart, and one would be quite tricky.

13.August.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We have corrected our takeover bids and increased them accordingly by 10 times the profit generated in the year 2014 with own technologies, goods, and services, i.e. the total profit of a takeover candidate minus the profit generated with our works of art and other intellectual property by said takeover candidate in that period, in addition to the market capitalization on the 1st of January 2015.
This increase is not the customary 20 times of the last financial year, because the share of profit generated with own technologies, goods, and services is more and more generated on the basis of our technologies, goods, and services, and therefore is more and more our profit, or in other words the total profit will not be longer generated due to our reinvestments.

14.August.2020

00:00 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - mode just started ***
This clarification is a continuation of the discussions done in the Clarifications and Further steps of the {dates missing} ... January 2020 with the focus laid on hyperconvergence of

to Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs) and Ontologic System Providers (OSPs) (see also the issue SOPR #297 of today).

At first, we recall and summarize some relevant matter for better introduction.

As we sometimes explain, we only use the terms

• Infrastructure as a Service (TaaS),
• Platform as a Service (PaaS), and
• Software as a Service (SaaS),

and even

as well as terms for several

for better understanding and discussing the Ontologic System (OS) and the Ontoscope (Os) with regard to

• International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) (ISO/OSI) model of communication system abstraction layers, or correctly denoted the ISO/IEC 7498 standard.

and

In fact, it is just our Ontologic System (OS) with its

{better wording} and when creating the OS, then one intention and goal was to use as less as possible terms as part of the expression of the idea and for its description, to present this integration and demonstrate a minimalism emphasizing the masterly, ingenious, and brilliant.
In this sense, the terms listed above could be viewed as a resolution and explanation by the public and for the public.

As we also made clear in the referenced Clarifications and Further steps of the ... January 2020, the fields of grid computing and cloud computing before the presentation of our Ontologic System (OS) at the end of October 2006 are not what is wrongly called those fields, which are now

which again are also parts of what we call our Ontologic Computing (OC) and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
Correspondingly, cloud-native means OS-based and OAOS.

In the following, we quote an online encyclopedia to give addtional informations, that are relevant in the following sections.
An online encyclopedia about network virtualization: "In computing, network virtualization or network virtualisation is the process of combining hardware and software network resources and network functionality into a single, software-based administrative entity, a virtual network. Network virtualization involves platform virtualization [(hardware virtualization is the virtualization of computers as complete hardware platforms)], often combined with resource virtualization.
Network virtualization is categorized as either external virtualization, combining many networks or parts of networks into a virtual unit, or internal virtualization, providing network-like functionality to software containers on a single network server.
[...]
Components
Various equipment and software vendors offer network virtualization by combining any of the following:

An online encyclopedia about OpenFlow: "OpenFlow is a communications protocol that gives access to the forwarding plane of a network switch or router over the network.[1]
Description
OpenFlow enables network controllers to determine the path of network packets across a network of switches. The controllers are distinct from the switches. This separation of the control from the forwarding allows for more sophisticated traffic management than is feasible using access control lists (ACLs) and routing protocols. Also, OpenFlow allows switches from different vendors - often each with their own proprietary interfaces and scripting languages - to be managed remotely using a single, open protocol. The protocol's inventors consider OpenFlow an enabler of software-defined networking (SDN).
[...]
In January 2013, [a first company] unveiled a virtual switch for [a second company's] hypervisor, which is designed to bring OpenFlow-based software-defined networking and network virtualisation to [a second company's] environments.[23]"]

Once again, an online encyclopedia about Software-Defined Networking (SDN): "Software-defined networking (SDN) technology is an approach to network management that enables dynamic, programmatically efficient network configuration in order to improve network performance and monitoring, making it more like cloud computing than traditional network management.[1] SDN is meant to address the fact that the static architecture of traditional networks is decentralized and complex while current networks require more flexibility and easy troubleshooting. SDN attempts to centralize network intelligence in one network component by disassociating the forwarding process of network packets (data plane) from the routing process (control plane). The control plane consists of one or more controllers, which are considered the brain of the SDN network where the whole intelligence is incorporated. [...]
SDN was commonly associated with the OpenFlow protocol (for remote communication with network plane elements for the purpose of determining the path of network packets across network switches) since the latter's emergence in 2011. However, since 2012[2][3] OpenFlow for many companies is no longer an exclusive solution, they added proprietary techniques. [...]
SD-WAN applies similar technology to a wide area network (WAN).[4]"]

An online encyclopedia about Open vSwitch (OVS): "Open vSwitch, sometimes abbreviated as OVS, is an open-source implementation of a distributed virtual multilayer switch. The main purpose of Open vSwitch is to provide a switching stack for hardware virtualization environments, while supporting multiple protocols and standards used in computer networks.[3]
[...]

Overview
Open vSwitch is a software implementation of a virtual multilayer network switch, designed to enable effective network automation through programmatic extensions, while supporting standard management interfaces and protocols [...]. In addition, Open vSwitch is designed to support transparent distribution across multiple physical servers by enabling creation of cross-server switches in a way that abstracts out the underlying server architecture [...].
Open vSwitch can operate both as a software-based network switch running within a virtual machine (VM) hypervisor, and as the control stack for dedicated switching hardware; as a result, it has been ported to multiple virtualization platforms, switching chipsets, and networking hardware accelerators.[7]"]

An online encyclopedia about Open Wireless RouTer (OpenWrt): "OpenWrt (OPEN Wireless RouTer) is an open source project for embedded operating systems based on Linux, primarily used on embedded devices to route network traffic. [...]
[...]
OpenWrt provides exhaustive possibilities to configure common network-related features, like IPv4, IPv6, DNS, DHCP, routing, firewall, NAT, port forwarding and WPA.
Other features include:

• Printers
• Mobile broadband modems
• Webcams
• Sound cards"

We recall some few facts related to our

Evoos

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
  • machine or automated reasoning,
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC), and
• Artificial Life (AL),

• is a software and a hyperconvergent and integrated system, and
• comprises Associative Memory (AM), including
  • Content-Addressable Memory (CAM),
  • BlackBoard (BB) system, including
    • systems of loosely-coupled applications and services,
    • Tuple Space (TS),
    • Linda like system, and
    • central space of a Multi-Agent System (MAS)

OS

• operating system (os), including
  • Unix,
  • Evoos,
  • L4,
  • Muse, Apertos,
  • and so on,
• SB,
• hypervisor and hence network virtualization hypervisors for SDN,
• overlay network, Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC),
• Grid Computing (GC),
• mobile computing and networking, including
  • Body Area Network (BAN),
  • Personal Area Network (PAN),
  • Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN),
  • Metropolitan Area Network (MAN),
  • Wide Area Network (WAN),
  • radio-based network (cellular or mobile), and
  • satellite-based network,
• AM, including
  • Content-Addressable Memory (CAM),
  • BlackBoard (BB) system, including
    • systems of loosely-coupled applications and services,
    • Tuple Space (TS),
    • Linda like system,
    • Space-Based Architecture (SBA), and also
    • central space of a Multi-Agent System (MAS), including
    • MAS based on Space-Based Architecture (SBA), including
      • SpaceFrame framework based on scalable communication and service execution architectures and frameworks, for advanced hybrid and personalized telecommunication and Internet services (see foundation of SDN-NFV, and SBA, hybrid cloud, management and orchestration below), including
        • Scalable Infrastructure (SI) (see "[...] Jini Network Technology Scalable Communication Framework") and
        • ServiceFrame (see "Service-Centered Approach to Telecom Service Development"),
• machine automation, specifically machine automation with Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), including Remote Terminal Unit (RTU),
• policy-based automation,
• Relational Petri-Net-based Object-oriented Modeling, Unified Modeling Language (UML), and data modeling language (e.g. Yet Another Next Generation (YANG)),
• Tuxmobil is about network mobile elements (see description of network virtualization above)
• OpenFlow considered as an enabler of SDN, also implemented in a virtual switch for a hypervisor designed for SDN and NV, and utilized as an overlay network or abstracted forwarding plane (see its description and Evoos above),
• Open vSwitch software-based virtual multilayer network switch running within a virtual machine (VM) hypervisor (see its description and Evoos above),
• OpenWrT wireless router, etc., and hence also external network virtualization (see its description and Evoos above),
• OpenStack cloud computing and IaaS model (came after the presentation of our OS, initial release was on the 21st of October 2010),
• Quality Management (QM) System (QMS) with closed control loop, comprising
  • management (plane)
    • planning, forecasting, or predicting,
    • organizing,
    • commanding,
    • orchestrating,
    • coordinating, and
    • controlling,

    and

  • execution (plane),
    • control (plane) and
    • data ((transport) plane),
• AutoSemantic,
• and much more,

• is called Ontologic System Architecture (OSA),
• is built around a special abstraction of a layered system architecture with homogeneous, heterogeneous, synchronous, and also asynchronous modules, and
• integrates all in one,

• migration,
• synchronization of applications and data from one computing machine to another one, even from a personal computer to a cell phone, or an automotive media center, and
• communication,

• sensor nets (parts of semantic IoT and virtually all IoT cloud → our)
• vehicular communication systems and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), including
  • Car-to-everything (C2X),
  • Vehicle-to-everything (V2X),
  • Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), and
  • Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) (cellular C2X and V2X (C-V2X) (illegal 3GPP and 5GAA standards) and extension of C-V2X with WLAN (IEEE 802.11 family of standards) → our, and therefore WLAN-based C2X and V2X (illegal IEEE 802.11p standard in case of DSRC, illegal IEEE 1609 family of standards based on IEEE 802.11p in case of WAVE, and illegal 802.11bd standard in case of ITS), and also extension of C2X and V2X with cellular network, extension of C-V2X and V2X with PAN, as well as integration with SOx, SBA, SDN, NVF, network slicing, and so on, or simply said based on OC → our),
• Industrial IoT (virtually all IIoT and virtually all IoT cloud → our),
• Industry 4.0 (virtually all or even all → our),
• etc.

Eventually, all kinds of communications are integrated.

00:18 UTC+2
SOPR #297

*** Work in progress - mode just started ***
Topic

Legal matter
We observed and documented at least four failed attempts to steal our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV).

The first and second attempts were done on the basis of our designation Web 3©™ or Web 3.0™
First attempt through technology, specifically

by software manufacturers, and several WebSPs and CloudSPs

The second attempt through network convergence and integration, and eventually through other terms for parts of our ON, OW, and OV, specifically

by the network equipment manufacturers and ComSPs, and also software manufacturers, but also several WebSPs and CloudSPs, and even other industries like manufacturing and engineering industries interested in CSP, IoT, and NES, specifically C2X and V2X, and also IIoT and Industry 4.0.

from network hardware and software manufacturers and ComSPs and WebSPs and CloudSPs converge

Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and Virtualized Network Functions (VNF) architecture and cloud orchestration by

as part of the second attempt to confine, rob, and blackmail us:

as part of the third attempt to confine and blackmail us:

and for sure the fields of

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS), and
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),

• statistical learning and analysis,
• data mining,
• Big Data Fusion (BDF),
• Big Data Processing (BDP), and
• Big Data Analytics (BDA),

as part of the fourth and latest attempt are

partner programs and ecosystems, and also

That needs no further discussion, because that new value architecture is our OS with its OSA, and also ON, OW, and OV, (OSystem) core of the management structure of the ON, OW, and OV, and so on, which are kept under the power of control and the management through our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) exclusively, and in this specific context there is

In fact, this is what we are discussing here in this issue once again.

As we also said {link missing} before that the arrival of the

or correctly said the related parts of our ON, OW, and OV effectively flattened the telecommunications services, but also removed the lock-in for WAN services of the ComSPs and expanded their services with WAN services.
Eventually, the result of this development based on the creation of our OS is the total network sharing, including sharing of the

across wired and wireless networks worldwide, including

which is now being implemented after being created by us around 16 years ago. See also the wireless broadband standard Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.16, better known as WiMax, and its release 2.1 compatible with Long-Term Evolution Time-Division Duplex (LTE-TDD), also refered as TD-LTE for familiarity with Time Division Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access (TD-SCDMA).
Because an SDN controller facilitates third parties

suggests the overall integration into an SDN-WAN controller, or better said Ontologic Net (ON) controller, or correctly said Ontologic Net Control Agent (ONCA).
{this is not clear enough}

There are cliques that

We clearly explained multiple times why that is totally ridiculous, especially due to the reason that the demand for opening our OS also for those cliques perverts the whole moral, ethical, and legal foundation of modern societies and the intention of such an opening, which eventually reduces the whole pro bono publico ad absurdum, and therefore it is not going to happen in the way those entities demand.
Consequently, we are acting on that with our SOPR:
At first, we prohibited directly physically connected public cloud computing environments/platforms.
Then, we prohibited Iaas and PaaS.
Having considered the overall situation and that we approached it from the WebSPs and CloudSPs not so long ago, we relaxed these prohibitions due to a better understanding of the matter and convincing social, societal, legal, technical, and economical reasons.
But we also made clear all the time that we will not destroy our AWs by unnecessary modifications, but will exploit our OS as we want to and as it is absolutely legal and usual, and therefore, we retain the power of control and the management through our SOPR exclusively.

To draw the white, yellow, or red line is difficult, because our OS spirit is a multilayer thing and our OS is already everywhere, and the limitations between the layers of the ISO/OSI model are not given with our OSA and blurring and even disappearing in practice already.
At first, we addressed the matter following a top-down approach in regard to the ISO/OSI model and coming from the virtual side of WebSPs and CloudSPs.
In the last weeks, we addressed the matter following a bottom-up approach in regard to the ISO/OSI model and coming from the physical side of ComSPs, TSPs, and ISPs.
...
{correct dates?} We learned that since at lest the year 2012 the convergence of ComSPs and CloudSPs is already happening and since the year 2015 the focus is laid on SDN-NFV and SDN-WAN, and integration of core networks and GCEFC environments, or correctly said ON, OW, and OV.

But by the convergence of

to Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs) and Ontologic System Providers (OSPs) the task of drawing the white, yellow, or red line becomes straightforward.
{this is not clear enough} And this is where the management structure of our ON, OW, and OV, the backbone, core network, or fabric of the infrastructure or environment of our SOPR inclusive our Superstructure, including for example our

• Mixed Reality (MR) cloud and
• spatial computing cloud,

• SpeechCloud,
• MapCloud,
• AutoCloud,
• BikeCloud,
• PlaneCloud,
• ShipCloud,
• AutoMapCloud,
• CarCloud,
• RobotCloud,
• DroneCloud,
• etc.,

{better explanation required, not between but immersing} are located between {physical and virtual} ComSPs, TSPs, and ISPs, and WSPs and CloudSPs

{executed in the 1st layer} (Osystem) core

As a consequence and for the reasons of the core values and guarantees of our SOPR, including ON, OW, and OV neutrality and interoperability, physical connections and networks based on

are all connected with our management (plane or space) (and control (plane or space)) of our structures, if not used for only internal business processes
Example: A WebSP or CloudSP with own cable or frequency spectrum network has to go through the SOPR infrastructures, even when used for own public services (e.g. operation of autonomous vehicles and provision of electronic commerce platform), but not connect delivery service with own autonomous vehicles of own electronic commerce platform by own cable or frequency spectrum network. :)

{this is not clear enough} Furthermore,

• our corporation,
• on-premise, private user, customer for private use only (physical Customer-Premises Equipment or Customer-Provided Equipment (pCPE or pCE), and
• main contractors, suppliers, and providers of our SOPR with the allowance of our SOPR (physical Provider Equipment (pPE)),

and

• our corporation,
• on-premise, private user, customer for private use only (virtualized Customer-Premises Equipment or Customer-Provided Equipment (vCPE) or vCE), and
• main contractors, suppliers, and providers of our SOPR with the allowance of our SOPR (virtualized Provider Equipment (vPE)).

In this regard, we must once again remind other entities to

or we have to withdraw individual discounts or even the allowance for any performance and reproduction of our AWs and further IPs.

This is no joke but only practice of national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements being effective.
As we said, at first the overall situation is corrected, then one can claim an illegal activity or whatsoever done by us in relation to our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions, and then we might correct the situation if truly legally demanded, or just stop acting and potentially also licensing.
But keep in mind that a very large part of the royalties is reinvested in things for the members and licensees of our SOPR.
The details and alternatives are not discussed in the public anymore.

As we also said, the realization of our OS with its ON, OW, and OV, and also OAOS is already fascinating and amazing, because it happens at all and it works very well.
And this is only what? Yes, indeed, the beginning. Is not it?

18.August.2020

00:18 UTC+2
SOPR #298

*** Proof-reading mode ***
Topics
In this issue we discuss some social topics:

Education System (EduS)
Due to a pandemic the need for a digitalization of the education system has increased.

We already began to transform the way of learning by digitalization with the introduction of our learning platform on the basis of our Ontologic System (OS) and our intelliTablet (iTablet), which is a handheld variant of our Ontoscope (Os), and the field of Internet of Things (IoT), or better said the related parts of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV). Best of all, Piaget's theory of cognitive development and epistemological collectively referred to as genetic epistemology is inside our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and therefore inside our OS and our Os.
Sadly to say, governments and industries have blocked and tried to get our learning platform under their power of control, but failed in this area as well after we stopped to lead.

The

with their subsystems and platforms, including for example the

and systems and platforms for

But in these areas we are again observing the same attempts by governments and industries, for example on the basis of the field of Grid, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (GCEFC), or better said Ontologic Computing (OC). As a consequence, our SOPR had to make our Education System (EduS) with our learning platform an exclusive subsystem, which

Digital rights [Biometrical recognition]
In the U.K. a groundbreaking ruling was given in regard to facial recognition technologies, specifically Automatic Facial Recognition (AFR) technology, where a watch list with pictures of persons is taken and compared to (real-time) video footage.
What we like most in this relation is the argumentation and related example given by a barrister in a court hearing. We quote a related report of a public-law broadcaster: "[The] barrister Dan Squires QC argued that if everyone was stopped and asked for their personal data on the way into a stadium, people would feel uncomfortable.
If they were to do this with fingerprints, it would be unlawful, but by doing this with AFR there are no legal constraints," he said, as there are clear laws and guidance on taking fingerprints.
Mr Squires said it was the potential use of the power, not its actual use to date, that was the issue.
"It's not enough that it has been done in a proportionate manner so far," he said."

Exactly, this is the way one has to view on the matter, and we have to add that the actual use of PII to date is an issue as well.
Therefore, others and we even argue that federal and public authorities should not be allowed to use any biometrical recognition technology at all without a third entity acting between citizens and authorities as an independent watchdog and operator. And because merely outsourcing the processes to service providers is not sufficient, we already said that joint ventures between federal and public entities and our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) have to be established to solve the issue.

20.August.2020

Clarification

*** Review - some details and statements might be imprecise or even wrong ***
When one enters the term network slicing, then she or he is redirected to the webpage titled 5G network slicing. At first, we wondered about this and we wondered even more about the fact that according to the alledged history a webpage for network slicing is missing. And then surfaced the next fabricated webpage of that online encyclopedia, as we find them everywhere, where entities are misleading the public in relation to our Ontologic System (OS). They just do not fit with what is claimed and constructed. We are even so deep into the matter after all the years, that we see the fabrication by the way one is wording nonsense. It just feels not sound somehow, but unconclusive, awkward, cumbersome, and cornered when reading.

We quote: "The history of network slicing can be tracked back to the late 80s with the introduction of the concept of "slice" in the networking field. Overlay networks provided the first form of network slicing since heterogeneous network resources were combined together to create virtual networks over a common infrastructure. However, they lacked a mechanism that could enable their programmability.[8 [Network Slicing & Softwarization: A Survey on Principles, Enabling Technologies & Solutions.2018]][9 [End-to-end Network Slicing for 5G Mobile Networks.2017]]
But in the referenced document [8], which is also fabricated to mislead the public about our OS, the following is written: "Network slicing has been recently gaining momentum among an ever-growing community of researchers from both academia and industry. [...] This concept can be traced back to the idea of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud computing model, whereby different tenants share computing, networking and storage resources, in order to create different isolated fully-functional virtual networks on a common infrastructure.
[...]
Network slicing rely on virtualization concepts, which have been around as far back as the 1960s [20] [21] when the first operating system (CP-40) was developed by IBM [22 [Survey of Virtual Machine Research. 1974]].
The design of the CP-40 on IBM system 360/40 supported time-sharing and virtual memory, introducing a breakthrough in computing by accommodating up to fifteen users simultaneously [23] with the illusion of working individually on a complete set of hardware and software [20] [23 [A Time-Sharing System using an Associative Memory. 1966]].
[...]
The introduction of overlay networks in the late 80s that consist of nodes connected over logical links forming a virtual network over a network composed of physical infrastructure can be seen as an early form of network slicing, combining heterogeneous resources over various administrative domains. Overlay networks provide QoS guarantees in a service-oriented fashion. They are flexible in nature but not automated nor programmable."

But experts do know that the overlay network paradigm, like for example the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network paradigm, is a totally different concept, which is not that claimed utter nonsense described as (physical) infrastructure slicing at all and also has nothing in common with network slicing at all. Experts also do know that the IaaS capability model was defined by the U.S.American National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in September 2011, which is around 12 years after our Evoos and around 5 years after our OS, but not in the late 1980s or early 2000s.
Even non-experts can see how evidence of prior art, that should preceed our Evoos and our OS, is artifically created unsuccessfully.

Eventually, we came first with the automated and programmable overlay networks, as well as their integration with network functions, and also virtualization, automation, isolation, customization, programmability, and hierarchical abstraction included in the Evoos and OS, and hence with the foundations of network slicing. We even mentioned the use case of 5G in relation to Evoos and the OS, and hence in this context as the first ones when the rest of the world said it would only provide higher performances in comparison to former and actual mobile communication standards.

The same nonsense have been found on the webpage titled Internet area network.

We quote: "The development of the Internet from being document centric via semantic data towards more and more services was described as "Dynamic Web".[10 [A History of the Dynamic Web]] This contribution focused in particular in the need for better meta-data able to describe not only implementation details but also conceptual details of model-based applications."
But on the referenced webpage there is nothing about semantic data, meta-data, services, and model-based applications, but merely the following: "[...] But the ride to our "Web 2.0" world of today has taken quite a while. It has been about 14 years since the first web page with dynamic content was created. This is a look at the history of the dynamic web, especially the server-side programming languages and frameworks that make it all possible.
[...]
The history of the dynamic web - A timeline
This is a time-line of key events in the history of server-side scripting languages and frameworks."
Basically, that is all and nothing in common with what is misleadingly called Internet Area Network (IAN).

We quote once again: "iAreaNet was founded in 1999 by CEO James DeCrescenzo as a company called Internet Area Network, devoted to providing offsite data storage and disaster prevention before the cloud existed in widely deployed commercial form. It pioneered the idea of an IAN.[citation needed] Since then, it has strengthened operations and has made significant investments in developing a powerful infrastructure to provide businesses with an array of technology solutions, including the patent-pending iAreaOffice, which commercializes the concept of an IAN by eliminating the need for traditional LAN, WAN or telephone system for business communications.[citation needed]"
But we looked at the website in the archive, and there is nothing that resembles cloud computing or eliminates LAN, WAN, and telephone, but a web-based (which still means WAN) suite of integrated communication tools or applications.

We have read and checked many webpages and documents and in all cases we can prove that he fabricated webpages are about our OS and cannot produce any evidence of prior art, we publicated first, and our OS with its integrating OS Architecture (OSA) has been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint, and therefore enjoy the exclusive rights worldwide.

Wikipedia is becoming useless as encyclopedia.

Btw.: One can also see that the 5G services are based on our OS to a large extent.

21.August.2020

01:40 snd 26:40 UTC+2
SOPR #299

*** Work in progress - last two sections may need some more work ***
Topics
In this issue we go into some details related to the following topics:

Legal matter [agreement]
The AoA and the ToS of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) can also be viewed as follows:
The Concorde Agreement is a contract between the

• CommunicationsSPs,
  including
  • TelecommunicationsSPs and
  • InternetSPs,

  and

• WebSPs and CloudSPs,

and

which dictates the terms

The effect of the agreement is to encourage fairness and to increase the commercial success of the members and licensees of our SOPR, and also our SOPR. The most important factor in achieving this is the obligation of the OAOSPs to participate in our OS everytime and everywhere, hence making our OS reliable for other entities, who were expected to invest heavily to acquire performing and reproduction rights or to just use it. In return OAOSPs have to pay a fixed fee or are guaranteed a percentage of the revenue ((overall) revenue minus royalty, etc.) under FRANDAC terms and conditions in accordance with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR.

Legal matter [FOSS to POSS]
There is a certain demand for freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico. For this reason, we agreed to open our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) to a sufficiently large extent and as far as required modifications do not destroy the expression of our works of art.
But some entities still think that Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) would provide them a leverage or a legal loophole. But like the crystal clear legal situation regarding our OS, it is also absolutely obvious that Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects are not considered as competition in relation to the regulations included in the AoA and the ToS of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), because

As an implication, if a part of our OS is implemented only with one or more FOSS, then the one or more reimplemented variants go to our SOPR according to the related regulation included in the AoA and the ToS.

In the following we give an example on the basis of service meshes and orchestration systems:
So far we are aware about an FOSS Service Mesh Interface (SMI), several FOSS service meshes, and some few proprietary service meshes.
Because the FOSS SMI and any service meshes based on it, and the FOSS service meshes do not count as competition and by the way are considered to be illegal anyway, only the few proprietary service meshes are relevant for further considerations.
If there would be only 1 proprietary service mesh, then there would be no competiton at all. In such a situation, our SOPR would get the FOSS SMI and any service mesh based on it, and also the FOSS service meshes in their reimplemented and relicensed POSS variants, revoke the allowance for the 1 proprietary service mesh, and provide the Universal Service Mesh (USM) for all members and licensees of our SOPR.
Because at least 2 proprietary service meshes for private, public, and hybrid infrastructures or environments are existing, there is competition and our SOPR already acts accordingly.
But due to the reason that a service mesh is a dedicated layer for managing, controlling, and monitoring service-to-service communication within an application, and managing, controlling, and monitoring are mangement functions and hence belong to the management plane, or correctly said management space, the service meshes for the shared infrastructure(s) or environment(s) in general and our USM in particular are so or so part of the exclusive management space of the infrastructure of our SOPR. As a consequence, the proprietary service meshes have to be hooked into the USM in case they are utilized in the shared infrastructure(s) or environment(s) (see the section Legal matter [infrastructure] below).

The same holds for container orchestration systems, which are underlying or subordinate to services meshes.
If there would be or already exist at least 2 proprietary orchestration systems based on operating system-level virtualization or containerization for private, public, and hybrid infrastructures or environments, then there would be competition and our SOPR would act or already acts accordingly.
But due to the reasons that containers are managed by a container orchestration system, and orchestrating is a management function and hence belongs to the management space, the orchestration systems for the shared infrastructure(s) or environment(s) in general and our Universal Orchestration System (UOS), Universal Orchestation Agent (UOA), or simply Universal Orchestrator (UO, UOrch, or UniO) in particular are so or so part of the exclusive management space of the infrastructure of our SOPR.

{still effective?} In this context, we also said in the past that a replacement will be financed by our SOPR and only for as long as the reimplementation and the handover of related IPs takes the reimplemented illegal FOSS will be tolerated.

To conclude the topic we would also like to note that FOSS also prevents innovation, because if something is freely available, then there is also no reason for innovation as part of competition at all.
In fact, innovation does not require that something is free but merely that something is open.
Howsoever, to move from FOSS to Proprietary Open Source Software (POSS) is no problem in regard to the benefit for the public, and acting in alternative ways is the norm for example in relation to patents and usage rights.

Besides this, we observed that only our OS is illegally implemented as FOSS and as part of open projects by companies that in the majority earn money with proprietary technologies, goods, and services, which are based on our OS but not given away for free and open. That shows that the true goal of all those entities is to either get the power of control over our OS, or obstruct its economic exploitation by us and do other serious criminal activities. Once again, that is ridiculous and hence is not going to happen.

Legal matter [systems and platforms]
We make one of our monthly recall for the new ones or the unteachable ones or both: The infrastructure of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) comprises subsystems and platforms, that are mandatory for all members and licensees of our SOPR. These systems and platforms handle

also in a centralized way, which

• realize this centralized handling,
• fulfill all legal requirements and other demands, and
• unleash the full range of advantages.

One of these systems and platforms is our Healthcare 4.0 subsystem, including warning applications and services.

In this regard it has to be understood that we will

Legal matter [infrastructure]
We already began to distinguish computing and networking infrastructures or environments with their backbones, core networks, or fabrics into

• members and licensees of our SOPR,

• SOPR,
• main contractors, suppliers, and providers of our SOPR, and
• joint ventures between federal and public authorities and institutes, and our SOPR,

and

• SOPR, and
• main contractors, suppliers, and providers of our SOPR.

Correspondingly, the management structure of our ON, OW, and OV is connected and integrated with said distinguished computing and networking infrastructures or environments with their backbones, core networks, or fabrics so to say

• service layer or service space,
• network function layer or network function space, and
• infrastructure layer or infrastructure space

for establishing total

• planning,
• orchestrating,
• resource controlling,
• result controlling, and
• monitoring,

In this context, the term public means that a service is rendered over a network that is open for public use respectively over the shared infrastructure(s) or environment(s).

Now that we worked out that the management space of the private or exclusive backbone, core network, or fabric of the computing and networking infrastructure or environment of our SOPR is also kept under the exclusive power of control and management of our SOPR, we are able to describe how it is connected with other infrastructures or environments.
Correspondingly, the topology of the computing and networking infrastructures or environments looks like.

The SOPR also shares infrastructure(s) or environment(s) and has exclusive infrastructure(s) or environment(s) managing shared infrastructure(s) or environment(s)
In addition to the supply of systems and platforms, the management plane or management space provides all management functions, which are common for all members and licensees of our SOPR.
The role of the SOPR resembles the owner or manager of the network and the provider of services for the network in the field of Open-Access Network (OAN). Therefore, it is not incorrect to point out a potential conflict of interest, though these activities of our SOPR are legal, as is the case of other entities, that are owner of a network, a system, or a platform, and provider of an application or a service simultaneously.
To be honest, we have not created the OS to provide other entities a foundation for earning money in the first place, but to interact and work with it and also create further AWs and IPs.
Because this management has been added to the already existing overall system by us with the creation of our OS as well and in addition to all the other technologies, goods, and services, that were already existing or also created by us.

In the following we give an example on the basis of the field of Open-Access Network (OAN):
"An open-access network (OAN) refers to a horizontally layered network architecture in telecommunications, and the business model that separates the physical access to the network from the delivery of services. In an OAN, the owner or manager of the network does not supply services for the network; these services must be supplied by separate retail service providers. There are two different open-access network models: the two- and three-layer models.
"Open Access" refers to a specialised and focused business model, in which a network infrastructure provider limits its activities to a fixed set of value layers in order to avoid conflicts of interest. The network infrastructure provider creates an open market and a platform for internet service providers (ISPs) to add value. The Open Access provider remains neutral and independent and offers standard and transparent pricing to ISPs on its network. It never competes with the ISPs.
[...] Towards the end of the twentieth century, with the rise of packet switching - as used on the Internet - and IP-based and wireless technologies, it became possible to design, build, and operate a single high performance network capable of delivering hundreds of services from multiple, competing providers.

Two models
An OAN uses a different business model than traditional telecommunications networks. Regardless of whether the two- or three-layer model is used, an open-access network fundamentally means that there is an "organisational separation" of each of the layers. In other words, the network owner/operator cannot also be a retailer on that network.
Two-layer model
In the two-layer OAN model, there is a network owner and operator, and multiple retail service providers that deliver services over the network.
Three-layer model
In the three-layer OAN model the physical layer - the fiber or wireless infrastructure - is owned by one company, the operations and maintenance of the network and the provision of services is run by a second company, and the retail service providers provide the third layer.

[...] In the US, open access networks like municipality owned [OANs ...] have been able to attract both local and regional service providers quickly. This has resulted in the cost of Internet access and telephone service for business users in [such a] service area to decline by fifty to seventy percent due to the increased competition between providers. This OAN provides open access transport to any service provider that meets minimum technical and financial qualifications, including allowing existing providers to supply enhanced services, however, it does sell services itself and therefore does {?} not compete with private sector providers."

{do we? does this correspond with private, public, hybrid, shared, and exclusive infrasture(s) or environments? This seems not to be correct. The guiding line is to allow common computing and networking configurations (e.g. VPNetwork, VPCloud, etc.), but not exclusive management, etc. of SOPR.} For fulfilling the demands of the public we

• application and service plane or application and service space,
• control plane or control space, and
• data plane or data space,

to the public, and also

Interoperability [service mesh]
As we have explained multiple times, os-level virtualization or containerization and the foundation of microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) are included in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos). Our OS includes our Evoos and integrates it with the reflective and distributed operating system Apertos (Muse) and the Cognac system based on Apertos, the fields of actor-based system, Agent-Based Operating System (ABOS), and Multi-Agent System (MAS), hypervisor, and much more. In this way, we cover the whole range of operating systems with all kinds of process isolation, distributed systems, and so on.
Consequently, our OS also includes a means of orchestrating multiple isolated userspace instances (e.g. server and service instances), computing units, or slices, and hence the foundation of container orchestration, which is even based on our unified Software-Defined Networking-Network Function Virtualization (SDN-NFV) service orchestrator and network slice controller of our multi-domain Software-Defined Infrastructure (SDI) (see also the Clarification of the 14th of August 2020). :D

As already said in the example given in the section Legal matter [FOSS to POSS] above, managing, controlling, and monitoring, as well as orchestrating are management functions.
for our foundational microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) and SDN-NFV

{managment orchestration, control services, application services, network and infrastructure services} Our Ontologic Net (ON) controller, or correctly said Ontologic Net Control Agent (ONCA), and our Universal Orchestation Agent (UOA), or simply said Universal Orchestrator (UO, UOrch, or UniO) also comprises the integration of the other agents, including

• application and service layer or application and service space,
• network function layer or network function space, and
• infrastructure layer or infrastructure space

28.August.2020

King Smiley Further steps

We got several sales offers for really interesting objects at the ideal locations:

In general, our bids for real estate are the asking price minus 30% economically (ec), minus 20% rationally (r), and minus 15% emotionally (em). Adjusting the asking prices in accordance with our bids will not work, because also adjust our bids accordingly.
In these cases of literally spoken particular hotel offereings listed above this leads to our following maximal purchase offers if the offerings and their asking prices are not just only fantasy and can be validated by our own calculation:

In case of one or more successful purchases, one of these real estates might become a private town residence respectively hôtel particulier.
Thank you very much for you offereings.

We would also like to thank you very much for the other kind sale offers for objects in Florida, U.S.A., and have put them on the list.

In addition, we are coming closer and closer to the launch of our new real estates and branch offices in

29.August.2020

Ontonics Further steps

We worked a little on one of our next big things at various areas.
One area is a basic technology, which is based on an advanced approach that we developed as well.
Another area is a basic mobile device variant, which can be utilized in separation and in combination with other devices.
The third area is the preparation of the mass production and market introduction of basic stationary device variants.
Just another area of work is related to platforms, applications, and services.
Last but not least, we looked at the functionalities for providing safety and security only to get the confirmation once again that we are ahead of the competition in this area as well since years.
The audience will be thrilled by its performances and possibilities of utilization, which are quite fascinating, amazing, and mind-blowing.

See also the issue Blitz Fund II #3 of today.

We also note that our bid to takeover the vehicle manufacturer Volkswagen for 6 billion euro is still valid and might be its last chance for survival.
Only 6 billion euro? Yes, because the takeover includes its debt of 192 billion euro.

Ontonics Blitz Fund II #3

The whole technology of one of our next unexpected and unforeseeable creations, masterpieces, and big things, which is at least 5 and potentially up to around 10 years ahead of what we have seen so far in the research and development efforts by other entities, and our related goods and service have matured so far, that we made it the Superbolt #1 of our investment program Blitz Fund II.