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

Indeed, we have opposing demands and claims in this case:

But if we would go on and on with such cases like the one of HPE and similar issues, then we will quickly reach a point, where we, the creators and holders of the exclusive rights and properties, would even not be allowed to enjoy our exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and would even have no property rights.

The related collaborations with other companies are the next representative example of blackmailing and conducting a conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation to assert a level playing field and to democratize the basic rights and the individual rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. In the end, this would mean no exclusive exploitation and no exclusive control of the original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S., which again would mean that this mafia with its illegal monopolies does the exclusive exploitation and has the exclusive control, which again would eventually mean no rights and properties for C.S. and our corporation.

As usual for that mafia, they just do not want to

It should also be absolutely clear that those serious criminals and their corrupt politicians

Eventually, by starting this conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation that mafia already lost control about its fraud scheme.

If at all, then Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) might file a tender and work as a Main Contract (MC) of our SOPR, but does not do our performance and reproduction (e.g. training a coherent Ontologic Model (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM))) with a third entity (e.g. an own customer or even an illegal SBaaSx provider), or even as part of a conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation, when it comes to what is wrongly called Cloud Computing.

Alternatively, sell HPE to our corporation, for sure for an evaluation, which does not include the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

It is that simple. :)

90% + 10%, 35% OAOS, 8.5% HW
This is what we are now talking about.

See also the note

07.December.2023

18:53, 19:11, and 19:51 UTC+1
AI Alliance even serious criminal

*** Work in progress - maybe a few thoughts missing ***
Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We do not need to look at the matter in any detail to claim that the so-called AI Alliance has been established to infringe the constitutive freedoms (e.g. expression), and the exclusive rights (e.g. moral rights) and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, for example stealing, criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy and plot, blackmailing, etc., which makes it a serious criminal endeavour.

They still think that open science, research and development, and open innovation would be a very clever trick.
But like every other entity worldwide, the members of that AI Alliance have to comply with the

We can only repeat that the freedom of expression, and the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))), and copyrights of C.S. are 100% court-proof and therefore effective, decisive, and authoritative.

This means, doing open science, research and development, and open innovation still has its legal limits.
Indeed, science has some freedoms, but only as much as scientists do comply with said legal requirements, which means proper referencing and licensing is always required, as well as avoiding any interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive rights of C.S. and our corporation.
We also note that many institutes are funded by entities to conduct Research and Development (R&D) for commercial reasons, so that eventually only a fraction of the R&D results can be utilized freely, so to say.
Therefore, conducting science, research and development, and innovation does not change the fact that our SOPR decides about the allowance and licensing of the performance and reproduction of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., but no other entity.

Furthermore, all members of that even serious criminal AI Alliance have to utilize the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their fundamental set of essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services anyway.

We already had that illegal trick with Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in relation to the fields of operating system (os), Distributed System (DS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), what is wrongly called Grid Computing (GC), Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), Cloud operating system (Cos) (e.g. Data Center operating system (DCos)), etc., and even in relation to parts of the os kernel Linux, the field of Big Data Processing (BDP), and so on, and we have here once again the same bad actors.
We also note that open source or transparent source does not mean free beer.
We also recall that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) are not the Internet, the World Wide Web (WWW), and the Linux kernel, which were built on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), but something totally new.
Eventually, no similar parallels exist between the developments of their (illegal) FOSS and the creations of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
Therefore once again, such open activities do not mean that our SOPR has not the exclusive control in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

What makes that AI Alliance even more criminal is the simple fact that we are already implementing our ONE AND ONLY Ontologic System (OS), which is the successor of our Evoos and has become the successor of many other systems with its

• transformation of the Internet into the Universal Space and a Wide Area Network (WAN) SuperComputer (SC) (WANSC) or Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup), and
• integration of the fields of Cybernetics, Hard- and SoftBionics, and Robotics with the Universal Space and the Intersup

as (the architecture for) the Resilient, Bionic, Cybernetic, Robotic, Autonomic Space and Time Computer and Network (RCBRASTCN), or better said Ontologic High Safety and High Security Computer and Network (OHS²CN),

• transformation of the WWW into the Universal Brain Space and a Wide Area Network (WAN) High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (HP²CN), and
• integration of the Ontologic Net (ON) with the Universal Brain Space and the HP²CN

as (the architecture for) the Semantic and Cognitive High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (SCHP²CN), or better said Ontologic High Performance and High Productivity Computer and Network (OHP²CN), and

• fusion of all real and physical, virtual and digital, cybernetical and cyber-physical, and ontological and metaphysical realities with their (information) spaces, environments, worlds, and universes to the New Reality Environment (NRE), and
• integration of the Ontologic Net (ON) and the Ontologic Web (OW) with (the realities and) the NRE

as (the architecture for) the Space and Time Computer or Network (STCN), or better said Ontologic Computer and Network (OCN),
which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov), which again is something entirely or totally new, or being more precise the manifestation of the New Reality (NR) spacetime fabric of our Ontologic System (OS), and also includes what is wrongly called metaverse, multiverse, web3, or whatsoever.

Obviously, our OS is not an Application Programming Interface (API), a Virtual Machine (VM), or an os, and also not the Internet, the WWW, the Linux kernel, and so on.

And just another fact is that we are already running our SOPR as the ONE AND ONLY institution, which does all that community stuff, including managing, discussing, and shaping the future of our OS, and so on.

Discussing the matter, including the activities of the AI Alliance and the legal issues, in relation to the development of the Internet and the Linux kernel is already a court-proof evidence that our OS (e.g. OntoLinux) has been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint, and said FOSS projects (e.g. Linux, etc.) already belong to the court-proof evidences for the many infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
A trick only works one time and those tricks are quite old already.

And we

because both depend on us and collaborate against us, and even are members of the same international interest group.

Likewise, we

because both depend on us and collaborate against us, and even are members of the same international clique.

Extra funny, or better said mad: All bad actors do not want that C.S. and our corporation exist. But simultaneously, they

That endeavour is only total nonsense and has absolutely no chance of passing the tests at the courts, like in the cases of other illegal Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) (e.g. OpenAI and Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society (member of that illegal AI Alliance)), specifically due to the reason that in all cases basing the conspiracies and plots on 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), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.) was too much.

We are very sure that all members of that AI alliance have legal representations, who are very competent and hence will highly recommend that they immediately

• proper referencing respectively citation with attribution, labelling, and branding of our AWs and IPs,
• payment of triple damage compensations,
• transfer of all illegal materials,
• execution of cease and desist orders,
• and all other actions

as required by law or demanded by us or both.

See for example the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

08.December.2023

14:32 UTC+1
Success story continues and no end in sight

Some days ago a dirty fellow of the New York Trolls (NYT) publicized a list with persons, who allegedly would be behind the so-called field of Modern Artificial Intelligence.
For sure, C.S. was not listed.
But there is this little detail, which is a huge problem: All those persons, self-exposers, fraudsters, and serious criminals

Eventually, we have 2 facts:

And no, the company OpenAI respectively the satellite of the company Microsoft is not the creator of our

with our generative and creative Bionics, but merely an implementer of an illegal plagiarism and fake of essential parts of the original and unique masterpieces created by C.S..
Claiming otherwise, as done by for example the lying press, constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of C.S. and our corporation worldwide.
Legal actions and other measures are in preparation, comprising demanding the payment of damage compensations, blacklisting, and demanding the transfer of all illegal materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, etc..

16:17 UTC+1
British CMA continuing with interferences

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) of the U.K. is continuing with its illegal actions against our activities by

which constitute an unconstitutional interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) of C.S. and our corporation.

Now, the CMA is questioning the conspiracy and plot of the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, but not as one might think, which means in support of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. It is investigating if the "close, multi-faceted relationship" between both companies might constitute a "relevant merger". brp>This shows that the British market regulator is already acting against the golden power regulation (e.g. formerly 51% + 49% and actually 90% + 10%) of the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) despite we are only restoring the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation infringed by other entities in this way.

Howsoever, this will not change the fact that we get the control back in one way or another for example by closing a company and hiring its employees due to the

• payment of damage compensations,
• transfer of all illegal materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, etc.,
• unaffordable but Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) License Model (LM),
• etc.,

09.December.2023

10:37 UTC
Mistral AI blacklisted

Just ask the investors, and also members of the French clique for details.
As we always say in such a situation, a trick only works one time.

And as the old saying goes, "One always meets twice in life".

10:23 and 19:55 UTC+1
EC continuing with interferences

The European Commission (EC) and the member states of the European Union (EU) are continuing with its illegal actions against our activities by

which constitute an unconstitutional interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. and our corporation, including the rights

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

First of all, we have to note once again that the EC has taken said original and unique AWs and further IPs as sources of inspiration and blueprints without allowance and referencing. This already constitutes a copyright infringement. And no, politicians and governments are not immune in the case of the copyright.

Secondly, we have to make crystal clear that if a regulation of the so-called Artificial Intelligence Act is violating said exclusive rights of C.S., then it is unconstitutional.
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) on the behalf and with the consent of C.S. reserves the right to not comply with such an illegal regulation in relation to said original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S..
For example, the rule to make it clear that texts, images, and sounds created by artificial intelligence are based on this technology has the potential to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm one or more of said exclusive rights of C.S..

Thirdly, we demand the EC and the member states of the EU to

immediately and unreservedly,

specifically in relation to our

In this relation, we also have to repeat once again that other OMs (e.g. foundation models, (e.g. ANNLMs (e.g. LLMs))), which are

violate the exclusive moral right regarding any modifications of said original and unique AWs and further IPs, specifically our Evoos and our OS, and therefore constitute copyright infringements.
We also highly recommend to review the related regulations of the

being effective.

By the way:

• AI is based on logics and mathematics, and therefore able to make inferences or draw conclusions, and
• ML is based on probability theory (also called as probabilistics) and statistcs and therefore able to make calculation results.

Exactly like we have proven in the field of Fuzzy Logic (FL), we have also proven that the fields of AI and ML are based on mathematics and therefore can be unified mathematically and logically, and also validated and verified, as well as made resilient and efficient.
This is a serious copyright warning.

• Evolutionary operating system (Evoos),
• Ontologic System (OS),
• coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including ontologies, foundation models, foundational models, capability and operational models (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)))),
• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot),
• Ontologic storage Base (OntoBase),
• OntoBlender, OntoBuilder, and
• generative and creative Bionics,

it is not a technology pioneer, but merely user of SuperComputing (SC or SupC) and Bionics, and an implementer of an illegal plagiarism and fake of essential parts of our Ontologic System (OS) and member of serious criminal conspiracies and plots against C.S. and our corporation.
Our Evoos was presented in 1999 and our OS was presented in 2006. See also the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 8th of December 2023 (yesterday).
All responsible managers, researchers, and other individuals are already qualified for long-term prison sentences.
Greetings from Theranos and FTX to Microsoft and OpenAI, and also to Meta, Intel, Dell, IBM, Oracle, and Co..

10.December.2023

09:33 UTC+1
No improvements by Microsoft, Amazon, and Co.

12.December.2023

11:17 and 12: 47UTC+1
SOPR studied list of members of AI Alliance

We have spent and squandered 5 hours by taking a look on the members list of the so-called Artificial Intelligence Alliance (AI Alliance) (see the note AI Alliance highly suspicious and even serious criminal of the 7th of December 2023) and some of its members.

Surprisingly, under the 47 members listed (only 46 members, because Red Hat is a subsidiary of IBM) we could not find the federal agencies National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, the companies Dell and Oracle, and the research institutes Imperial College London and Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN), as claimed in a report of the Creatures of the News Networks (CNN), The Fake News Leader, but a lot of the usual fraudulent and even serious criminal entities, such as the

• Meta (Facebook) (founding member),
• IBM and Red Hat (founding member),
• Intel,
• SoftBank,
• ServiceNow,
• Sony,

• Agency for Science Technology and Reseach Singapore,
• Berkely College for Computing, Data Science, and Society,
• Boston University - Mass Open Cloud (MOC) Alliance (founding member),
• ETH Zürich,
• Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
• Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB),
• Keio University Tokyo, Japan,
• Mohamed Bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence,
• New York University (NYU),
• Rensselaer Polytechnic institute New York, U.S.America,
• Technical University of Munich (TUM),
• University of Texas at Austin, U.S.America,
• University of Tokyo, Japan,
• University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - The Grainger College of Engineering,
• Yale University - Yale School of Engineering & Applied Science,

• The Linux Foundation,

For sure, that AI Alliance is fraud and even serious crime due to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, including our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and the goal of most if not all of its members is to

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

Our short investigation already shows, that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint for an illegal plagiarism and fake of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), as one can see with our

• Distributed operating system (Dos), including
  • actor-based (concurrent and lock-free or non-blocking) system (e.g. Sony Aperion (Apertos (Muse))),
• Cloud Computing (CC or CloudC),
• SuperComputing (SC or SupC), including
  • High Performance and High Productivity Computing System (HP²CS), including
    • Cluster Computing (CC or ClusterC),
  • Grid Computing (GC or GridC)
• Autonomic Computing (AC),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC),
• Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC) (e.g. ants),
• ontology-based system, including
  • Agent-Based System (ABS) (e.g. Multi-Agent System (MAS) with Agent Communication Language (ACL), Domain-Specific Language (DSL), and ontology-based messaging),
  • Content-Addressable technologies (CAx or CAddx),
  • BlackBoard technologies (BBx) (central space of a Multi-Agent System (MAS), including
    • technologies of Loosely Coupled Applications and Services (xLCAS),
    • Tuple Space technologies (TSx),
      • Linda System (LS),
    • Linda-like System (LlS), and
    • Space-Based technologies (SBx), and also
    • Space-Based Multi-Agent System (SBMAS) or MAS based on Space-Based Architecture (SBA), including
      • Multimodal System (MS or MMS), Multimodal Dialog System (MDS or MMDS) (e.g. MUltiple Language/Target Integration PLATform FOR Modules (MULTIPLATFORM) integration platform respectively distributed multi-blackboard platform for MultiModal Dialog Systems (MMDS) with ontology-based messaging),
      • Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) (e.g. Multi-Agent System (MAS), MAS agency or Agent Society (AS), and Distributed Problem Solving (DPS)) or Agent-Based Distributed System (ABDS), or Distributed Agent-Based System (DABS),
      • Multi-Agent Multimodal System (MAMS or MAMMS) (e.g. Open Agent Architecture (OAA) and its Multimodal User Interface (MUI)),
• etc., etc., etc.,

which in many cases are also based on espionage and copyright infringement.

But all these legal and illegal prior art does not change the facts that our integrating Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) are not Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and are not required for accrued talents, but are copyright protected, obviously, doubtlessly, and definitely, and are even part of the

of the true creator C.S..
In addition, what we have explained about our Evoos and our OS in the last months has been stolen virtually immediately. But these explanations are no new findings at all, which we made recently, but merely the resolution of our creations, and our related publications constitute no proof for new findings.

Also, no other prior art and no own expression of idea have been presented by those members of that alliance.
Therefore, no way exists to muddle through and circumvent the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation on this basis and by the same old and already busted tricks.
Despite of these facts, several members have been carefully selected, specifically start-ups, which do nothing else than stealing from us.

Eventually, that illegal plagiarism and fake is not an alternative, because that AI Alliance merely infringes the exclusive rights of C.S. and our corporation and wants to substitute C.S. and our corporation with their entities and our Evoos and our OS with their plagiarism and fake, which does not provide more freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

And at least the moral rights of C.S. are exclusive, remain exclusive, and must be exclusive, because otherwise no copyright would exist anymore.
And their aversion to work with us, specifically with our SOPR, and refusal to utilize the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

are very weak legal arguments at the courts.

That is not the way the arts, sciences, and economies, and also society, democracy, rule-based law and order environment, as well as freedom of choice, innovation, and competition for the pro bono publico==for the public good work.
From the legal point of view the cases of various violations of the

are crystal clear and do not require further investigation, elaboration, and discussion. Simply see this website of OntomaX, specifically the publications of the last few years, to get an introduction to the oeuvre of C.S., the subject matter, and the legal situation.

As we explained before (see for example the note AI Alliance highly suspicious or even serious criminal of the 7th of December 2023 once again), the arts, sciences, and NPOs are no legal loopholes to cricumvent said laws, rights and properties, and ToS.
Therefore, our SOPR can only highly recommend once again to comply with these laws, rights and properties, and ToS, and also remove all companies and also all organizations, which have a relation to commercial activities, from that illegal alliance to draw a red line between science and commerce.
Everything else will remain unsustainably expensive.

By the way:

• we will not give up any right and (control over) property and
• our SOPR protects also the rights and properties of the companies Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Co., which are attacked by their own illegal trick based on FOSS in relation to our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. (e.g. LLM)), Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and so on.

But an overall conspiracy and plot being executed in collaboration with other entities cannot be rejected.

13:43 and 14:49 UTC+1
Courts inconsistent regarding appstores

Apple Appstore is no monopoly, and hence no illegal monopoly, but has an illegal payment term and practice.
Google Playstore respectively app marketplace is an illegal monopoly.
Where is the difference?

Do not expect too much as verdict. Most potentially, all issues can be resolved easily in such a way that the overall law and order environment remains intact.
The issue with the in-app payment can easily be resolved like in the case of the Apple Appstore.
The issue with the "bribery" can simply be prohibited and stopped, and a usual penalty can be imposed.
The issue with the pre-installed Google applications and services is only an issue in relation to devices of other manufacturers, but not own devices of Alphabet (Google) (see Neon vs. IBM once again). Howsoever, it can elegantly be resolved in case of devices of other manufacturers like in the case of the Microsoft Windows Explorer by demanding the presentation of a window with checkboxes for alternatives to tick at the first start of Android.

Google's contract terms, which restrict competing app stores from Android devices are legal. See Neon vs. IBM.
See also the note

After all, competition exists even between those illegal partial variants of our Ontologic System (OS).
In addition Android can be used without using the Google Playstore, Gmail, etc., having an account at Google or a device manufacturer, and so on. We are practicing it since 4 years without any problems, but with a little less comfort (e.g. some very few providers with even more aggressive advertising and some very few faulty updates of applications).

But that inconsistency does not change the legal basis in relation to our original and unique works of art also titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), which include most of the actual variants of the most important operating systems based on their system architectures and components, and also most access places and devices with our Ontoscope and the actual variants of the most important mobile devices, smart devices, smart vehicles, etc. and many and more and more of the most important robots based on its system architecture and components.
Or simply said, in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) the aspects of our Evoos and our OS, which are copyrightable as expressive elements, are at least 1 metalevel higher.

13.December.2023

19:22 UTC+1
IBM blacklisted

We are sure that our fans and readers are having the same opinion that

is sufficient to blacklist the company IBM.

19:23 UTC+1
Intel blacklisted

We are sure that our fans and readers are having the same opinion that

is sufficient to blacklist the company Intel.

19:24 UTC+1
AMD blacklisted

We are sure that our fans and readers are having the same opinion that

is sufficient to blacklist the company AMD.

Stupid is as stupid does.

19:25 UTC+1
Together.AI blacklisted

The company Together.ai is one of those many fraudulent and even serious criminal AI crap start-ups.

19:26 UTC+1
Sakana.AI / Multiplatform.AI blacklisted

The company Sakana.AI / Multiplatform.AI is one of those many fraudulent and even serious criminal AI crap start-ups.

By the way:

19:27 UTC+1
Aitomatic blacklisted

The company Aitomatic is one of those many fraudulent and even serious criminal AI crap start-ups.

19:28 UTC+1
ServiceNow blacklisted

We are sure that our fans and readers are having the same opinion that

is sufficient to blacklist the company ServiceNow.

For sure, the ServiceNow exist since the year 2003. But in the following years it infringed more and more the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, at first in the fields of Software as a Services technologies (SaaSx) and Platform as a Service technologies (PaaSx) and recently by making certain acquisitions, and conducting and participating in at least 2 conspiracies and plots.

19:33 UTC+1
More evidence shows Android is OS variant

In the settings section of the illegal partial variant of our Ontologic System (OS) Google, Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android we found a subsection for the synchronization with Google Drive, OneDrive, and Samsung Cloud.

This shows several facts:

• migration 'Max-Mig',
• synchronization 'Max-Sync' of applications and data, and
• communication 'Max-Com'"

listed in the Feature-List #2 of our OS and explicitly mentioned on the 24th of April 2008 are services of what is

• wrongly called Cloud Computing (CC) as of around the year 2004 and
• called Cloud 2.0 by us only for better understanding,

as always explained by us, because Google Drive, OneDrive, and Samsung Cloud are Cloud services of the companies Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, and Samsung respectively.

19:37 UTC+1
Media companies have to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

The exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies comprise the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) platform, which has to be used exclusively by members and licensees of our SOPR for trading raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
Needless to say, this also includes informations, which are news contents.

Also note that a regulation of the ToS prohibits plagiarisms and fakes of our Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)), which is an essential part of our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS).

20:14 and 21:18 UTC+1
SOPR acting in case of integrity and OES attacks

The investigation of fraudulent and even serious criminal alliances in the field of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) showed, that governments with their cliques have created an own economic system, despite the existence of our exclusive Ontologic Economic System (OES) to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. and our corporation, including the rights

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

For sure, in wise foresight our SOPR has already reacted with a complete revision of the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) at the beginning of this year 2023 (see the note SOPR # of the 4th of January 2023).
But we also had to conclude that continuing with our blacklist makes no sense anymore, which is always the case in such a goldrush situation, and taking broader and deeper measures is more appropriated.
Therefore, for example

• triple damage compensations unpaid illegally, resulting from
  • withheld and thus outstanding royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
  • obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
  • thwarted, obstructed, blocked, and otherwise missed commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities, including damages at the stock markets in accordance with the development of the value (e.g. market capitalization) of a company, which is directly connected with fraudulent and criminal actions in relation to said AWs and IPs, which means up to 100% + 0%,
• profit generated illegally, or
• value (e.g. share price, market capitalization) increased or gained illegally

  by performing and reproducing our Evoos and our OS in whole or in part,

• 2 or more of compensation, profit, and value, or
• sum of them

  as total compensation,

It is that simple. :)

See for example the notes

and the other publications cited therein or publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

By the way:

Therefore, idea-expression distinction is given, in fact either no genre exists at all or alternatives exist in relation to themes, and taking essential parts of our Evoos and our OS and claiming for an exclusion of the copyright protection for these essential parts does not work, specifically if the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights are violated, because these essential parts are not inherent in the

14.December.2023

07:43 UTC+1
LlamaIndex (GPT Index) blacklisted

The company LlamaIndex (formerly GPT Index) is one of those many fraudulent and even serious criminal AI crap start-ups.

08:28 and 13:17 UTC+1
SOPR able to show missed opportunities at stock markets

We are able to prove at the courts that a correlation between the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and the development of the market capitalizations of the fraudulent and even serious criminal violators exist. In fact, the more aggressively said rights and properties were infringed, the higher the market capitalization became.
This fact can be easily seen by connecting our investigations and other publications and the marketing materials of the violators with the graphics of the individual developments of stocks of the violators and their abnormal increase. Just draw a line over a curve displaying the development of a share price from the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2014 and extend it over the following years to get the projected ordiniary development of a share price or a market capitalization.
The difference between the

of a share price or a market capitalization is the result of the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, because no other significant changes, inventions, developments, etc. than the ones based on said AWs and IPs have happened at least in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector between 2007 and today.

For sure, this illegal activities at the stock markets count as

because eventually the rights and properties of C.S.and our corporation and even C.S. and our corporation have been sold without having any rights and properties, and must be fully included in the damage compensations.

This ratio between the

is also the basis for the transfer or purchase of company shares (e.g. 51% + 49% to 100% + 0%).

Large investors do not need a special protection, because they do know what is going on.
Small investors do need to file lawsuits.

We also recall, that we will inform federal authorities, like for example the U.S.American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), about the mandatory reports, which were not made deliberately and the conspiracies and plots against C.S. and our corporation.

We also recall that we will also throw preliminary injunctions at the refrigerator door until one or all stick and eventually seek cease and desist orders. We have already worked out several options. That does not need millions of pages and millions of dollars.
Just being big and having a big mouth is definitely not enough, because our legal position is just too good to be rubbed of motivation, intimidated, blackmailed, and so on.

21:25 UTC+1
Comment of the Day

"The church created a dystopia. C.S. created a paradise." [C.S., Today]

Substitute the term church with others so that the comment matches other ideologies.

15.December.2023

08:02, 08:32, and 10:23 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - more order, some thoughts may be missing ***

In relation to the Global Brain metaphor, hypothesis, vision, idea, or genre, we have read the document titled "The World-Wide Web as a Super-Brain: from metaphor to model" and publicized in 1996.
It references for example

We are always happy to find older publications and to show what existed before and what C.S. created and achieved after.
Honestly, we are not sure if we have read this work before in the end of the 1990s or at the beginning of the 2000s and were inspired or got to the same basic conclusion otherwise, for example through work of other authors or plagiarists. Maybe we forgot it directly after reading, because we were already far ahead of it, or found similar contents elsewhere, and merely added here and there some keywords included in this document.

But we can already confirm and repeat our former results (see for example the Clarification of the 21st of September 2021) that they were not able to realize the Global Brain or the next generation of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) after the Web 2.0, which is a different direction than cybernetics. Only after C.S. created and presented our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) they knew how to do it and restarted this super career killer project by stealing our Evoos and our OS.

These documents about the Global Brain are conceptual, but not technological and operational. No concrete architectures for realization and implementation are provided and the few suggestions are superficial.

The discussed super-brain is restricted to the fields of

but lacks

"[...] the fact that the different 'nodes' of the digital network are controlled by computers allows sophisticated processing of the collected data, reinforcing the similarity between the network and the brain. This has led to the metaphor of the world-wide computer network as a 'global brain' [Mayer-Kress & Barczys, 1995; Russell, 1995]." Indeed, the fields of Problem Solving Environment (PSE) and Distributed Computing (DC) {?}Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC) are described and some individual facilities {?}nodes, which provide SuperComputing (SC or SupC) services.
But a detailed look at the

• SuperComputing (SC or SupC),
• BlackBoard System (BBS) (e.g. central space of a Multi-Agent System (MAS), JavaSpaces of Java Jini), and
• Web Services (WS) (e.g. WebObjects),

shows that these developements came only several years later, and

• job scheduling, for example of the fields of operating system (os), Distributed SuperComputing (DSC or DSupC), and Grid Computing (GC or GridC), and
• planning, for example of the fields of MAS or Intelligent Agent System (e.g. rational agent, Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI)).

Eventually, computing network means computer network or networking in this context. As an example, the workstation computer NeXT Computer is given, which runs on the NeXTSTEP operating system, which again is based on the Mach microkernel and the BSD-derived Unix variant.

It is also restricted to associative learning "on the basis of the paths followed by the users through the maze of linked documents" respectively the quantity of the use or strength of hyperlinks comparable to the use of paths of ants or bees between for example sources of food and colonies, and synapses respectively connections between neurons.

It comprises rudimentary software agents, which can be based on the symbolic, logic-based paradigm of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and utilized for ordinary retrieval.
"The traditional symbolic AI paradigm moreover made the unrealistic demand that knowledge be formulated as precise, formal rules. Our view of the super-brain rather emphasizes the context-dependent, adaptive and fuzzy character of associative networks, and is thus more reminiscent of the connectionist paradigm."
But it remains a symbolic approach, because a Semantic Network (SN) is not connectionist and ANN.
It also lack

It also comprises "the integration of individuals into a collective 'super-organism' with the thinking Web as its nervous system." "Eventually, the individual brains may become so strongly integrated with the Web that the Web would literally become a 'brain of brains': a super-brain."

Accordingly, the related fields are called

"An intelligent Web could extend its own knowledge by the process of "knowledge discovery" or "data mining"", including Machine Learning (ML).
"Many different techniques are available to support such discovery of general principles, including different forms of statistical analysis, genetic algorithms, inductive learning and conceptual clustering, but these still lack integration. The controlled development of knowledge requires a unified metamodel: a model of how new models are created and evolve."
But it lacks other subsymbolic, connectionist (neural), probabilistic, and statistic, and also emergence-driven paradigms, specifically Artificial Neural Network (ANN), hybrid subsymbolic and symbolic approaches, Computational Intelligence (CI) and Soft Computing (SC) (Fuzzy Logic (FL), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Probabilistic Model (PM or ProM), and Genetic Algorithm (GA)), Computational Linguistics (CL), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc..
It also lacks such a unified metamodel and a coherent model, and even a suggestion of how this should look like.

The specific approach of self-organization, which

• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR),
• Knowledge Retrieval (KR) System (KRS), and
• Knowledge Management (KM) System (KMS),

was repeated once again with the

For sure, this is by far not sufficient.
We note in this context that an improvement is suggested, which reminds us of the Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) technique, etc. (see also the Ontonics, OntoLab, Ontologics, OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 20th of February 2014), and an online search engine.
But it lacks control, safety, security, validation, verification, etc. in relation to the processess of self-organization and evolution.

We also note the unsolved contradiction between metarationality, metamodel, and metasystem level of thinking, common sense reasoning, and "context-dependent, adapitive and fuzzy character of associative networks, and is thus more reminiscent of the connectionist paradigm", specifically in relation to social networking and interaction.
Please keep in mind that the later should not to be confused with the fields of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Fuzzy Logic (FL), and together with the field of Genetic Algorithm (GA) mentioned therein and also the field of Probabilistic Model (PM or ProM), with the field of Soft Computing (SC), and its integration with the field of Agent-Based System (ABS), which only came in the same year (see for example "Software Agents and Soft Computing [] Towards Enhancing Machine Intelligence [] Concepts and Applications" (October 1996)) and the following years with the specialized works of others (see for example "Advanced Topics in Artificial Intelligence" Proceedings of the 12th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (6th to 10th of December 1999)) and creations of C.S. (see for example The Proposal about our Evoos (12th of December 1999)).

Furthermore, while the integration of individuals' brains into a super-brain and social, reciprocal interaction, etc. are not our goals, our Evoos and our OS do allow these, but also provide safety and security, e.g. ...

It also lacks encryption, smart contract transaction protocol, and blockchain technique, resilience, trustworthiness, Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), and so on.

Safety and security, cyber security, data protection or privacy, data security, data safety, self-sovereignty, digital sovereignty, digital identity, digital rights, data democracy, net neutrality, democracy, freedom, truth, and so on.
These are not concerns of the authors of the quoted document at all.

The assumptions about a super-organism and its knowledge market economics are just plain wrong, as everybody learned after the WWW, which was only 5 years old at the time of writing the quoted document, did not become what was envisioned a network of unfulfilled promises. Also, information looses its monetary value if its available for free on the one hand, as can be seen with music streaming platforms. Knowledge exists only in one version, every similar knowledge is only an editing or a modification of the original knowledge on the other hand.
One also learned that individuals are interested in adding and sharing manipulated information, fake, deleting information, etc.. And so on.
Companies with their platforms have already made the Global Brain proprietary, while they are trying to make the rest of our Evoos and OS FOSS without having any rights.

"It will only become clear in the next few years whether these changes in approach are sufficient to overcome the technical hurdles. At this stage, we can only conclude that extensive research will be needed in order to further develop, test and implement the ideas underlying the present model for a future network."
No, that brute force approach of the common sense super-brain ticks many of the right boxes, but eventually cannot work in practice.
In fact, we saw directly that such approaches simply have too many deficits in every aspect, which C.S. cured in most cases, if not all cases, with something more advanced and elaborated, our

which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and also physics, universe, Caliber/Calibre, etc..

The similarities also show that the original and unique Global Brain could have been a source of inspiration and somehow is integrated in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS). But a closer look on their properties, see for example the lists given in the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims

shows that they are much more different than similar.

In fact, our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) also extended the Global Brain to a major extent and created a new work of art by also creating, inventing, improving, or adding and integrating the fields of

• (foundation of) Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), 4th Generation Industry (I 4.0) with Ontologic holon (Onton), including holon and digital twin, and 5th Generation Industry (I 5.0) (I 4.0 with XR),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Education (E 4.0) and 5th Generation Education (E 5.0),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Medicine (M 4.0) and 5th Generation Medicine 5.0 (M 5.0),
• (foundation of) other subfields of the Next Generation (NG),

• (foundation of) Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), 4th Generation Industry (I 4.0) with Ontologic holon (Onton), including
  • holon and digital twin, and
  • 5th Generation Industry (I 5.0) (I 4.0 with XR),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Education (E 4.0) and 5th Generation Education (E 5.0),
• (foundation of) 4th Generation Medicine (M 4.0) and 5th Generation Medicine 5.0 (M 5.0),
• (foundation of) other subfields of the Next Generation (NG),

by our Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA).

Our OS added much more to create something totally new by also creating, or adding and integrating the fields of

• IIoT, I 4.0 and I 5.0,
• Education 4.0 and 5.0,
• Medicine 4.0 and 5.0,
• etc.,

by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Our Evoos and our OS also integrate and unify not only horizontally, but also vertically across the metalevels. For example, ANN can be found on the

The same holds for the fields of Agent-Based System (ABS), Mediated Reality (MedR), and so on.

Please note that formal modeling and formal validation and verification are based on logical and mathematical models of

like for example the suggested Globa Brain, super-brain, and super-organism with the Internet and the WWW as their nervous system.

One can also see why we were

in contrast to virtually everybody else, who in fact have not understood For What It's Worth (FWIW) and did not know at all what to do with Jini, SBx, etc. (see also the Clarification 11th of February 2019 (keyword sTuples) and the Clarification of the 23rd of February 2019), even the developers of Jini themselves have not understood completely the whole big picture, so that they even gave Java Jini and JavaSpaces away as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
The latter shows once again that they all had an idea "The integrated model seems a relatively prudent extrapolation of existing developments, supported by theoretical principles from [contemporary, state of the art] cybernetics, evolutionary theory and cognitive science.", but they had no expression of idea to realize the Global Brain, super-brain, super-organism, etc..
But this and the basic properties of our Evoos and our OS (see above) are also not included in the Global Brain and super-brain based on the Internet and the WWW.
"Eventually, the Global Brain 2.0 is based on our Evoos and therefore included in our OS, specifically in our Ontologic Web (OW)", which is the successor of the World Wide Web (WWW) (see once again the Clarification of the 21st of September 2021).

The suggested super-brain also shows why we turned to ontologies, while others tried to steal both, the super-brain and our Evoos, with the

The individual user is reflected and integrated to only a certain extent, but not completely.
It also shows why we call our Ontologic System (OS) an ontological argument or ontological proof, and also belief system, because the concept of consciousness, the process of thinking, and the imagination of spirit of C.S. in the next generation of the so-called super-brain and even the whole universe and New Reality (NR) has been created by C.S..

It also shows, why our Evoos and our OS

but

• scène à faire==scene to be made or scene that must be done respectively obligatory scene or scene mandated by or customary to the genre, and
• merger,

so that simple modifications and different implementations are not sufficient to circumvent the expressions of idea and eventually rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

As we explained multiple times, all related legal problems are solved by opening our OS and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our AWs and further IPs on the basis of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their fundamental set of facilities, technologies, goods, and services without interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (exploitation (commercialization (monetization))) of our SOPR with the consent and on behalf of C.S..
As we always say: It is that simple.

One can also see that fraudsters only stole single parts of our works of art, but

and therefore were unable to steal the complete masterpieces, which supports our claims about originality and uniqueness, personality, and protection once again.

In addition, it also shows that the strategies, conspiracies, and plots have been busted and do not work, as we explained multiple times before even in relation to the Global Brain.

See for example the notes

and the other publications cited therein or publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

Because we do not claim for other works, this might lead to some very few minor corrections of for example the notes

But no website revison is required.

By the way:

19.December.2023

16:46 UTC+1
SOPR studied classic idea-expression lawsuits

*** Work in progress - maybe some thoughts missing, better order and conclusion ***
Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

We looked at some very well known legal cases in relation to the idea-expression distinction doctrine, some other doctrines, and also copyrightability test (e.g. Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC)):

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Anne Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) (Abie's Irish Rose v. The Cohens and Kellys): "[This] was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case on copyright infringement by non-literal copying of a dramatic work. The Court held that copyright protection cannot be extended to the characteristics of stock characters in a story, whether it be a book, play, or film.

Facts
[...]
The question before the Court was whether the defendant's film infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the play by using similar elements.

Opinion of the Court
Judge Learned Hand, writing for the Court, noted that protection of literature cannot be limited to the exact text, or else an infringer could get away with copying by making trivial changes. The question then is whether the part taken was 'substantial'. However, it is impossible to set a firm boundary demarcating the line between work and ideas, he said, stating, "her copyright did not cover everything that might be drawn from her play; its content went to some extent into the public domain." In this case, there was no infringement, as the ideas that are copied are really universal concepts and stock characters."

Comment
The ruling was correct.

In relation to the case Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive (see below), it is said that substantial similarity had been first defined with this case.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954): "[...]
In an opinion written by Justice Stanley F. Reed, the Supreme Court held that the statuettes - male and female dancing figures made of semivitreous china - used as bases for fully equipped electric lamps were copyrightable, even though the lamp itself was a utilitarian mass-produced item."

Comment
The ruling was correct.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (1977): "[...]
They were instructed that in finding damages they should not consider McDonald's profits, but could consider the value that McDonald's had gained by using the Kroffts' work. [...]
On damages, the court discussed at some length whether the jury should have been instructed to ignore profits. The court felt that a successful plaintiff should be entitled at least to the greater of the damages or profits, and one of the judges felt they should be entitled to the sum of the two. If profits could not be determined accurately, the plaintiff should be entitled to "in lieu" damages. The case was remanded for an accounting, after which the district court could choose to award "in lieu" damages."

Comment
The ruling was correct.

The case continued as Nos. 75-1203 and 75-1202 (1977) at the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: "[...]
The jury was instructed that it was not to consider defendants' profits in determining damages, but could consider the value of use by the defendants of plaintiffs' work.
A verdict in favor of plaintiffs was returned and damages of $50,000.00 assessed. After the verdict, the parties briefed the question of whether plaintiffs were entitled to additional monetary recovery in the form of profits or statutory “in lieu” damages. The district court denied plaintiffs’ claim for such relief. The court found that these matters were properly for the jury to consider so that it would not exercise its discretion in hearing further evidence. These appeals followed."

We comment the case Atari Inc. v. Amusement World Inc., 547 F.Supp. 222 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1981) (Asteriods v. Meteors).

Comment
The ruling was wrong.
"What made a video game involving spaceships and space rocks an unprotected idea?" The genre or gameplay or rule of the game, which in this case was the overall idea of shooting down space rocks with a spaceship.
In fact, certain similarities (sizes of space rocks, effects of a hit, ratio and sizes of new rocks after split, spaceship control, etc.) of the clone

but

• shooting down space rocks as a video game or genre in general and
• Asteriods as a video game in particular.

As smaller or narrower the variety of expression possibilities, as more significant the similarities (compare with cathography). Differences are not sufficient to avoid a copyright infringement.
In addition, the judge argued that the overall feel of the clone was different in comparison to the original, because it was faster to play and in colour, but implicitely denied that the clone reproduced the overall feel of the original (e.g. its original and unique gaming experience) by also reproducing said certain similarities. If the video games would be recipes, then the resulting dishes would look and taste the same with the original less colourful and less warm than the clone, which implies that their written forms must be substantially similar.

We comment the case Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982) (Pac-Man v. K.C. Munchkin!).

Comment
The ruling was correct.
The court concluded that members of the addressed and interested public would see that K.C. Munchkin had copied from Pac-Man.
Also, an infringement does not require an exact reproduction.
Eventually, the overall feel and look-a-like (look and feel) is deciding as well.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. (3rd Cir. 1986) (Dentalab v. Dentlab): "Whelan [...] v. Jaslow [...] was a landmark case in defining principles that applied to copyright of computer software in the United States, extending beyond literal copying of the text to copying the more abstract structure, sequence and organization.[1] The decision initiated a six-year period (until Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.) of heightened copyright protection for computer programs.[2]

Background of the case
[...] In November 1979 Whelan left Strohl and set up her own business, acquiring the right to the software.[1]
Later, Jaslow became engaged in selling the Dentalab software in exchange for a percentage of the gross sales.[3] He formed a company named Dentcom which in late 1982 began to develop a program in a different computer language (BASIC) but with very similar functionality called Dentlab, marketed as a Dentalab successor. The new software could run on IBM Personal Computers, giving access to a broader market. On 30 June 1983 Jaslow's company filed a suit in Pennsylvania state court alleging that Whelan had misappropriated its trade secrets. Whelan filed a countersuit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the Dentlab software violated Whelan's copyrights in the Dentalab software.[4] The district court ruled that Dentlab was substantially similar to Dentalab because its structure and overall organization were substantially similar.[5] Jaslow appealed the decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[6]

Relevant law
The district court ruling in the Whelan case drew on the established doctrine that even when the component parts of a work cannot be copyrightable, the structure and organization of a work may be.[7] The court also drew support from the 1985 SAS Inst. Inc. v. S&H Computer Sys. Inc. in which it had been found that copyright protected organizational and structural details, not just specific lines of code.[8] Structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in this case was defined as "the manner in which the program operates, controls and regulates the computer in receiving, assembling, calculating, retaining, correlating, and producing useful information."[9] SSO refers to non-literal elements of computer programs that include "data input formats, file structures, design, organization and flow of the code, screen outputs or user interfaces, and the flow and sequencing of the screens."[10]

Decision
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted that computer programs are literary works under U.S. law.[11] The court drew an analogy with a concept defined by Judge Learned Hand who noted, talking about a play, that the exact wording was certainly protected, and then there were a series of layers of increasing abstraction before the high-level plot outline is reached, which is not protected. An ad hoc judgement based on careful comparison of the works would be needed to determine where in this spectrum any alleged copying lay, and to decide whether it was at a sufficiently specific level to be a violation rather than a different expression of the same idea. But "careful comparison" in the case of software works might involve checking millions of lines of code.[12]
The court rejected the "extrinsic-intrinsic" test that had commonly been used until then, where an expert and a lay observer are asked to independently determine whether the works are substantially similar.[6] The court reasoned that with literary works a non-literal element is protected to the extent that it is an expression of an idea rather than the idea itself. By analogy, the purpose or function of a software work would be the work's "idea", while everything not necessary to that purpose or function would be part of the expression of the idea. The expression would be protected, but the basic purpose or function would not.[3] On this basis the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling of copyright violation due to similarity of SSO.[13] The court found that the Copyright Act of 1976 supported its view of a software work as a compilation[f[oot]n[ote] 1 [In U.S. copyright law a "compilation" is defined as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.[14]]], saying:[14]
["]Although the Code does not use the terms "sequence," "order," or "structure," it is clear from the definition of compilations and derivative works, and the protection afforded them, that Congress was aware of the fact that the sequencing and ordering of materials could be copyrighted, i.e. that the sequence and order could be parts of the expression, not the idea, of a work.["]

Results
The Whelan decision initiated a period of excessively tight protection, suppressing innovation, since almost everything other than the broad purpose of a software work would be protected. The only exception was where the functionality could only be achieved in a very small number of ways. In these cases there could be no protection due to the merger doctrine, which applies when the expression and the idea are inextricably merged.[2] Later the same year, in Broderbund v. Unison the court cited Whelan when finding that the overall structure, sequencing, and arrangement of screens, or the "total concept and feel", could be protected by copyright.[15][16]"

Comment
The ruling was correct in general. But in particular, courts increasingly rejected the rulings of Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory and Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World (see below) in the following years, because they were too broad.

Later courts argued for example in the legal case of Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc. (see below) on the basis of method of operation, undue burden for users, and privileged use for compatibility and interoperability, which was still applied in the wrong way in the legal case of Oracle v. Google (see below).

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1127, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 1986): "[The case] was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California software case, initially important in determining how U.S. copyright law applied to the look and feel presented by a software product. It took an expansive position which later courts increasingly rejected.

Background
Broderbund Software developed The Print Shop, a program to produce signs and greeting cards, running on Apple II computers. Broderbund started discussions with Unison World about creating a version that would run on IBM PC compatibles. The two companies could not agree on a contract, but Unison World went ahead and developed an IBM PC product with similar function and a similar user interface. Broderbund sued for infringement of their copyright.[1]
In defense, Unison invoked the merger doctrine, arguing that the idea behind the user interface could not be separated from its expression, so could not be protected by copyright.[2]

Decision
The court referred to Whelan v. Jaslow, which had earlier that year established the principle that the structure, sequence and organization of a computer program could be subject to copyright (software copyright).[3]
Whelan had declared that, "the purpose or function of a utilitarian work would be the work's idea, and everything that is not necessary to that purpose or function would be part of the expression of the idea ... Where there are various means of achieving the desired purpose, then the particular means chosen is not necessary to the purpose; hence, there is expression, not idea."[4]
The court rejected "defendant's argument that the overall structure, sequencing, and arrangement of screens in [the program] fall outside the ambit of copyright protection."[5] The court introduced the idea of the "total concept and feel" of a software work.[6]
The court said, "the idea of 'Print Shop' is the creation of greeting cards, banners, posters and signs that contain infinitely variable combinations of text, graphics and borders. A rival software publisher is completely free to market a program with the same underlying idea, but it must express the idea through a substantially different structure."[1]
The display was held copyrightable since it contained "aesthetically pleasing artwork, an entertaining layout and display, and a high degree of stylistic creativity."[7]
This case found that copyright registration of a computer program implicitly covers registration of screen displays.[8]

Consequences
According to one author, "the Broderbund court has paved the way for a new and unanticipated application of Whelan. Under Broderbund, software designers will not be able to market programs which use the same, or a substantially similar, user interface ... [T]he ... decision extended copyright protection to a program's menu screens 'without regard for the lack of similarity in the underlying code'".[3] In Digital Communications Associates v. Softklone (1987) the court rejected Broderbund, holding that showing screen replication was not sufficient. The plaintiff had to show that the source or object code had substantial similarities.[9] The Copyright Office refused to register copyright in the textual display screens of the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet software in 1987. On 8 June 1988 the Copyright Office issued a Notice of Decision, summarized as:[10]
... all copyrightable expression owned by the same claimant and embodied in a computer program, or first published as a unit with a computer program, including computer screen displays, is considered a single work and should be registered on a single application form. The notice also confirms the applicability of 37 CFR §202.3(b)(3) concerning registration of all copyrightable expression in a unit of publication and of 37 CFR §202.3(b)(6) concerning one registration per work.
Other courts, such as the District Court of Connecticut in Manufacturers Technologies, Inc. v. CAMS Inc. (1989), found that the Broderbund approach was too expansive. That court decided that the software and the user interface were distinct, although could each contain copyrightable material, so the program accomplished "two interrelated yet distinct registrations." The court decided to review each screen, determine whether it contained expression that could be separated from the purpose or idea underlying the screen, and if so determine whether that expression had been copied. Taking this more detailed approach, the court found that some aspects such as the method of formatting a screen or of navigating within a screen were not subject to copyright [(idea-expression distinction)] , but other aspects of the screen appearance were copyrightable expression.[11]"

Comment
The ruling was correct in general. But in particular, it was too broad, like Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, and therefore revised, improved, and corrected with for example the rulings in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. and Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (see below).

We comment the case Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 (9th Cir. 1988) (Karate Champ v. World Karate Championship (International Karate)).

Comment
The ruling was wrong.
In fact, certain similarities (way of scoring system, etc.) of the clone

but

• karate fighting as a video gameplay or genre in general and
• Karate Champ as a video game in particular.

As smaller or narrower the variety of expression possibilities, as more significant the similarities (compare with cathography). Differences are not sufficient and even not relevant to avoid a copyright infringement.

We comment the case Xerox Holdings Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (1990).

Comment
The ruling was in part correct and in part wrong.
Indeed, it was a copyright infringement case, but also an unfair competition case.
In fact, the details of the art style used in its Graphical User Interface (GUI) (e.g. rectangular windows, icons or at least icon set and style, etc.) are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the GUI technique nor are they essential or inseparable from the ideas, rules, or functions of the GUI, which is also the basis for the claims of the company Apple against the companies Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, though on a lower metalevel (e.g. specific art styles of icons, etc.).
Furthermore, Xerox had not waited too long to file a copyright infringement case in relation to its GUI. A copyright infringement can virtually always be brought to court, specifically if the infringement continues. However, the damage compensation for an ordinary copyright infringement is subject to a statute of limitations. Xerox also had the option to resort to a charge of unfair competition for the entire duration of the infringement.
Also note that we do not think that a charge of unfair competition is weaker, because Apple and others might have interfered with, and also obstructed, undermined, and harmed the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. declaration of true origin and exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) of Xerox.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991): "[The case is] a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright.[1] In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
[...]
Before this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural.

Ruling of the court
The ruling of the court was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It examined the purpose of copyright and explained the standard of copyrightability as based on originality.
The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: that facts are not copyrightable, and that compilations [(collections and assemblings)] of facts can be.
"There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions", O'Connor wrote in her opinion. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data - i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. ... The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The "Sine qua non of copyright is originality."
Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information - the so-called "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" doctrine - but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8) - that is, to encourage creative expression.
[...]
In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor wrote that copyright can apply only to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc. - not to the information itself. [...] "Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement", she wrote.
[...]

Implications
The ruling has major implications for any project that serves as a collection of knowledge. Information (facts, discoveries, etc.) from any source is fair game, but cannot contain any of the "expressive" content added by the source author. That includes not only the author's own comments, but also their choice of which facts to cover, which links to make among the bits of information, the order of presentation (unless it is something obvious like alphabetical), evaluations of the quality of various pieces of information, or anything else that might be considered the author's "original creative work" rather than mere facts.
For example, a recipe is a process, and not copyrightable, but the words used to describe it are; see idea-expression [distinction or] divide and Publications International v. Meredith Corp. (1996).[3] Therefore, a recipe can be rewritten with different wording and be published without infringing copyright. If an individual rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, they might be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if they used different words, but the West decisions below [(Matthew Bender v. West, No. 94 Civ. 0589, 1997 WL 266972 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 1997), aff'd, 158 F. 3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub. nom. West v. Hyperlaw, 526 U.S. 1154 (1999))] suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity carried over from the original presentation. A sufficiently novel, useful, and unique (i.e. non-obvious) recipe can be granted protection under patent law.[4]
[...]
Another case covering this area is Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata (2003),[9] in which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a copyright holder in a compilation of public domain data cannot use that copyright to prevent others from using the underlying public domain data, but may only restrict the specific format of the compilation if that format is itself sufficiently creative. Assessment Technologies also held that it is a fair use of a copyrighted work to reverse engineer that work in order to gain access to uncopyrightable facts. [...]
In the late 1990s, Congress attempted to pass laws to protect collections of data,[10] but the measures failed.[11] By contrast, the European Union has a sui generis (specific to that type of work) intellectual property protection for collections of data [(database right)]."

Comment
The ruling was correct.

This shows once again why an Application Programming Interface (API), component, framework, architecture, design, art style, and so on of technologies (e.g. systems and platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services are copyrightable, and therefore are only allowed to be used in a privileged way, if and only if this use is for the purpose for compatibility and interoperability, but not for any other use.

At this point, it becomes obvious why we do not claim for prior art.
But we also recall that one cannot take a specific part of our Evoos and our OS and then apply the copyright doctrines, such as for example the idea-expression distinction doctrine, sweat of the brow doctrine, etc., and the copyright tests, such as for example the Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO) substantial similarity test (see Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory above), Abstraction-Filter-Comparison test (see Computer Associates International v. Altai below), etc., specifically if said specific part does not belong to the prior art, but is a new part of a work of art created by C.S..

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (1992) (OSCAR 3.4 and 3.5 v. CA-Scheduler Adapter): [The case] is a decision [...] that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test.
[...]
In the appeal, CA disputed the district court's finding that the OSCAR 3.5 did not have substantial similarity to CA's ADAPTER. They claimed that the district court did not apply a proper test that took into consideration the copying of non-literal elements of computer software. They claimed that despite the clean room rewrite, there was substantial similarity in the structures of ADAPTER including flow charts, inter-modular relationships, parameter lists, macros, and services obtained from the operating system.
To approach this issue, the court fully supported the claim that non-literal elements of software are protected under copyright. Software is considered a literary work for the purposes of copyright law, and non-literal elements of literary works are protected under copyright. As such, non-literal elements of software are also protected.
The question at hand was to what extent are the non-literal elements protected. Copyright protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself. As such, it is important to determine where to draw the line between expression and idea.
[...]
Facing a similar issue, Whelan v. Jaslow attempted to delineate the differences between idea and expression by saying that the function of the work is the idea and everything else not necessary to the function is the expression of the idea.[4] The court agreed with district court's refusal to follow the Whelan logic because the test is "conceptually overbroad."[1] A program can have multiple functions and thus many ideas.
As an alternate metric, the court presented a three-step test to determine substantial similarity, abstraction-filtration-comparison. This process is based on other previously established copyright principles of merger [(elements made for efficiency)], scènes à faire [(elements dictated by external factors)], and the public domain.[1]
[...]
The abstraction-filtration-comparison test has been quickly adopted by the courts. In fact, every court since 1992[-2006] has chosen to use the 3-step filtration test over the Whelan test.[6]
Some, however, have criticized the approach and claim that it overly narrows the scope of copyright protection. CA and other large computer companies argue that without broader protection, the test will stifle development and disincentivize programmers from actively designing and improving programs.[1]"

Comment
The ruling was correct.

We comment the case Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal, 1994) (Street Fighter II. v. Fighter's History).

Comment
Most potentially, the ruling was wrong. But the very details of the similarities between both video games have not been studied by us so that no final judgement is possible. But in general, the case is exactly like the case Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. (see above).

We comment the case Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)

Comment
The ruling was correct.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.,516 U.S. 233 (1996): "[...]

Background information
Borland released a spreadsheet product, Quattro Pro, with a compatibility mode in which its menu imitated Lotus 1-2-3, a competing product. None of the source code or machine code that generated the menus was copied, but the names of the commands and the organization of those commands into a hierarchy were virtually identical.[2]
Quattro Pro also contained a "Key Reader" feature, which allowed it to execute Lotus 1-2-3 keyboard macros. To support this feature, Quattro Pro's code contained a copy of Lotus's menu hierarchy in which each command was represented by its first letter instead of its entire name.
Borland CEO Philippe Kahn took the case to the software development community arguing that Lotus's position would stifle innovation and damage the future of software development. The vast majority of the software development community supported Borland's position.[citation needed]

District Court case
Lotus filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 2, 1990, claiming that the structure of the menus was copyrighted by Lotus. The district court ruled that Borland had infringed Lotus's copyright. The ruling was based in part on the fact that an alternative satisfactory menu structure could be designed. For example, the "Quit" command could be changed to "Exit".[3]
Borland immediately removed the Lotus-based menu system from Quattro Pro, but retained support for its "Key Reader" feature, and Lotus filed a supplemental claim against this feature. A district court held that this also constituted copyright infringement.

Circuit Court case
Borland appealed the decision of the district court arguing that the menu hierarchy is a "method of operation", which is not copyrightable according to 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court's decision, agreeing with Borland's legal theory that considered the menu hierarchy a "method of operation". The court agreed with the district court that an alternative menu hierarchy could be devised, but argued that despite this, the menu hierarchy is an uncopyrightable "method of operation".[4]
[...]
The court also considered the impact of their decision on users of software. If menu hierarchies were copyrightable, users would be required to learn how to perform the same operation in a different way for every program, which the court finds "absurd". Additionally, all macros would have to be re-written for each different program, which places an undue burden on users.[7]

Concurring opinion
[...] He argues that software is different from creative works, which makes it difficult to apply copyright law to software.
His opinion also considers the theory that Borland's use of the Lotus menu is "privileged". That is, because Borland copied the menu for a legitimate purpose of compatibility, its use should be allowed. This decision, if issued by the majority of the court, would have been narrower in scope than the "method of operations" decision. Copying a menu hierarchy would be allowed in some circumstances, and disallowed in others.[8]

[...]

Impact
The Lotus decision establishes a distinction in copyright law between the interface of a software product and its implementation. The implementation is subject to copyright. The public interface may also be subject to copyright to the extent that it contains expression (for example, the appearance of an icon). However, the set of available operations and the mechanics of how they are activated are not copyrightable.[9]: 211-215  This standard allows software developers to create competing versions of copyrighted software products without infringing the copyright.
Lotus v. Borland has been used as a lens through which to view the controversial case in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., dealing with the copyrightability of software application programming interfaces (APIs) and interoperability of software. [...]"

Comment
The ruling was in part correct and in part wrong.
Indeed, the argument that a textual display screen and a menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable method of operation could be correct in relation to standard software, but not in general,

The same holds for the argument that allowing the copyright of a textual display screen and a menu command hierarchy would place undue burden on users.
The same arguments were later wrongly made in relation to the programming language Java and its Java Virtual Machine (JVM) in the legal case Oracle v. Google (see below).

The concurring opinion regarding software as different from creative works is wrong in general, as shown by rulings in the later years.
Furthermore, while the argument is reasonable that "Borland's use of the Lotus menu is "privileged" [...], because Borland copied the menu for a legitimate purpose of compatibility [and therefore] should be allowed" in relation to standard software, it was also applied in the wrong way in the legal case of Oracle v. Google (see below), which was about an illegitimate purpose of avoiding an own development and saving licensing cost.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012) (Tetris v. Mino): "[...]
Judge Wolfson ruled early that, as previously established, the gameplay of Tetris was not copyrightable. [...] Wolfson also explored case law from other circuits, using the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) for substantial similarity that had been first defined in Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. (45 F.2d 119 (1930)) and then applied to computer software in Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (982 F.2d 693 (1992)). [...]
Wolfson explained that the court should compare the games "as they would appear to a layman [by] concentrating upon the gross features rather than an examination of minutiae", essentially comparing the games' respective look and feel; Wolfson further wrote "[i]f one has to squint to find distinctions only at a granular level, then the works are likely to be substantially similar".
[...]
"With the expressive elements of Tetris under copyright protection, copying one of these elements would not necessarily prove there has been copyright infringement, in isolation [respectively without causal link]. However, Wolfson found that Mino co-opted all of these elements, which had no development purpose "other than to avoid the difficult task of developing its own take on a known idea".[7] In her analysis, Wolfson quickly concluded that Mino failed the AFC test as it looked so similar to Tetris side-by-side. Further, Wolfson rejected the merger doctrine claim that Golden had proposed, since the details of the art style used in the Tetris blocks had "are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the game nor are they essential or inseparable from the ideas, rules, or functions of the game." Wolfson further dismissed Golden's scènes à faire arguments, ruling that Tetris was a unique game and thus had no established stock or common imagery that would be ineligible for protection. [Bingo!!!]"

Comment
The ruling was correct.

We also note that the first realization of a new gameplay like Tetris always consitutes a unique game and a new genre, and enjoys special protection comparable to a sui generis, which implies no scènes à faire.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00147 (W.D. Wash., 2012) (Triple Town v. Yeti Town): "While the case was settled out of court, preliminary opinions by Judge Richard A. Jones affirmed that a video game's "look and feel" may be protected by copyright [...]. [...] Despite the games having cosmetic differences with different settings, the similarities between the games were evidence that Yeti Town had illegally appropriated elements of Triple Town. [...] In October 2012, the companies announced a settlement where Spry Fox would own the intellectual property for both games.
[...]
Publicly, Spry Fox's chief creative officer commented that "there are also people who have learned from history that cloning is a valid business model, and they're going to build out entire companies around that concept".[8] In a statement, 6waves Lolapps responded that "the copyright infringement claims are unjustified" and that they respected intellectual property.[8]
[...]
[Judge Jones: "]The object hierarchy is similar. Progressing from grass to bush to tree to hut is similar to progressing from sapling to tree to tent to cabin. Perhaps more importantly, the object hierarchy coupled with the depiction of the field of play comprise a setting and theme that is similar to Triple Town's. A snowfield is not so different from a meadow, bears and yetis are both wild creatures. ... There are apparent differences between [the] games ... but a court must focus on what is similar, not what is different, when comparing two works.[1]["]
[...]
The ruling pushed the parties towards a legal settlement, since much of the legal strategy for 6waves Lolapps rested on the argument that copyright does not protect gameplay - an argument that the court rejected.[10] The parties soon settled out of court, resulting in Spry Fox owning the intellectual property for both games.[11]
[...]
[...] Although the ruling was only on the motion to dismiss, it is notable that they found substantial similarity despite having distinguishable art assets, unlike the Tetris v. Xio case.[2] Legal scholars [...] noted that the motion was decided days after the Tetris v. Xio decision, finding substantial similarity between the two games based on the look and feel instead of literal copying.[12]
[...] courts are more likely to find infringement where there was demonstrable evidence that the defendant was trying to imitate the plaintiff's game.[3]"

Comment
The ruling of the motion to dismiss was correct and led to a settlement out of court.
Cosmetic differences are not sufficient. Is not it?

We quote an online encyclopedia about the case Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. Reports, 18-956 (2021) (Java Virtual Machine v. Dalvik Virtual Machine and Android Runtime): "[...]

Case History
Prior

Subsequent
On remand, Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2017-1118, 2021 WL 1941874 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2021)
[...]"

Comment
The ruling was wrong.
As already quoted above, "Lotus v. Borland has been used as a lens through which to view the controversial case in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., dealing with the copyrightability of software application programming interfaces (APIs) and interoperability of software."
But a compatible or interoperable item must still be a new expression of idea, a case of fair use, or an element taken from the public domain, including an uncopyrightable item.
An Application Programming Interface (API) can be copyrighted, if it meets the minimal requirements, specifically the required minimum threshold of originality and uniqueness. But the ruling misinterpreted the function and the use of an API for a legitimate purpose of compatibility and interoperability of software and allowed its misuse to copy expressive elements and non-literal elements of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM).
Like in the case of Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive Google "co-opted all of these elements, which had no development purpose "other than to avoid the difficult task of developing its own take on a known idea"" in this case a programming language with the related Virtual Machine (VM), to circumvent the copyright restriction, and to avoid the licensing costs.
Alternatively, taking another programming language with related VM and without copyright restrictions and licensing costs, or licensing the copyright protected API or the Java Micro Edition (JME) would have solved the issue. An even better solution would have been to create, develop, implement, and present a new programming language or a new compiler for the existing programming language
The argument of accrued talent is wrong, if not capricious, because it contradicts applicable law and other rulings.

This reproduction was neither a case of fair use nor a case of legal privileged use for a legitimate purpose.
For the benefit of the public, the demand for compatibility and interoperability does not mean the loss of innovation and competition by merely copying an original.
Eventually, an exact copy of an original and unique expression of idea in whole or in part is never legal in one way or another.

We comment the case Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. Reports, 15-866 (2017)

Comment
The ruling was correct.
An industrial design, which is independent of the functionality of a utilitarian good, is viewed as a work of art respectively copyrightable expression of idea.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test: "The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) is a method of identifying substantial similarity for the purposes of applying copyright law. In particular, the AFC test is used to determine whether non-literal elements of a computer program have been copied by comparing the protectable elements of two programs. The AFC test was developed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 in its opinion for Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc.[1] It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.
[...]
One notable previous treatment of substantial similarity of the structure, sequence and organization (SSO) of software was adopted by the Third Circuit in Whelan v. Jaslow.[3] The court there suggested identifying the main function of a program as the idea and everything that is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the idea can be considered expression. The Altai court declined to follow this method, noting that the Whelan method "did not place enough emphasis on practical considerations".[4] The AFC test was devised to handle that issue
[...]

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison
The AFC test is a three-step process for determining substantial similarity of the non-literal elements of a computer program. The process requires the court to first identify the increasing levels of abstraction of the program. Then, at each level of abstraction, material that is not protectable by copyright is identified and filtered out from further examination. The final step is to compare the defendant's program to the plaintiff's, looking only at the copyright-protected material as identified in the previous two steps, and determine whether the plaintiff's work was copied. In addition, the court will assess the relative significance of any copied material with respect to the entire program.[5]

Abstraction
The purpose of the abstraction step is to identify which aspects of the program constitute its expression and which are the ideas. By what is commonly referred to as the [doctrine of] idea/expression dichotomy [or idea-expression distinction], copyright law protects an author's expression, but not the idea behind that expression.[6] In a computer program, the lowest level of abstraction, the concrete code of the program, is clearly expression, while the highest level of abstraction, the general function of the program, might be better classified as the idea behind the program. The abstractions test was first developed by the Second Circuit for use in literary works,[7] but in the AFC test, they outline how it might be applied to computer programs. The court identifies possible levels of abstraction that can be defined. In increasing order of abstraction; these are: individual instructions, groups of instructions organized into a "hierarchy of modules", the functions of the lowest-level modules, the functions of the higher-level modules, the "ultimate function" of the code.[8]

Filtration
The second step is to remove from consideration aspects of the program which are not legally protectable by copyright. The analysis is done at each level of abstraction identified in the previous step. The court identifies three factors to consider during this step: elements dictated by efficiency, elements dictated by external factors, and elements taken from the public domain.[5][9]
The court explains that elements dictated by efficiency are removed from consideration based on the merger doctrine which states that a form of expression that is incidental to the idea cannot be protected by copyright. In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright.[10]
Eliminating elements dictated by external factors is an application of the scènes à faire doctrine to computer programs. The doctrine holds that elements necessary for, or standard to, expression in some particular theme cannot be protected by copyright.[11] Elements dictated by external factors may include hardware specifications, interoperability and compatibility requirements, design standards, demands of the market being served, and standard programming techniques.[12]
Finally, material that exists in the public domain can not be copyrighted and is also removed from the analysis.[5]

Comparison
The final step of the AFC test is to consider the elements of the program identified in the first step and remaining after the second step, and for each of these compare the defendant's work with the plaintiff's to determine if the one is a copy of the other. In addition, the court will look at the importance of the copied portion with respect to the entire program.[13]

[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject look and feel: "In software design, the look and feel of a graphical user interface comprises aspects of its design, including elements such as colors, shapes, layout, and typefaces (the "look"), as well as the behavior of dynamic elements such as buttons, boxes, and menus (the "feel"). The term can also refer to aspects of a non-graphical user interface (such as a command-line interface), as well as to aspects of an API - mostly to parts of an API that are not related to its functional properties. The term is used in reference to both software and websites.[1][2]
Look and feel applies to other products. In documentation, for example, it refers to the graphical layout (document size, color, font, etc.) and the writing style. In the context of equipment, it refers to consistency in controls and displays across a product line.
Look and feel in operating system user interfaces serves two general purposes. First, it provides branding, helping to identify a set of products from one company. Second, it increases ease of use, since users will become familiar with how one product functions (looks, reads, etc.) and can translate their experience to other products with the same look and feel.

In widget toolkits
Contrary to operating system user interfaces, for which look and feel is a part of the product identification, widget toolkits often allow users to specialize their application look and feel, by deriving the default look and feel of the toolkit, or by completely defining their own. [...]

Lawsuits
Some companies try to assert copyright of trade dress over their look and feel.
The Broderbund v. Unison (1986) case was an early software copyright case that attempted to apply U.S. copyright law to the look and feel presented by a software product.
In 1987 Lotus sued Paperback Software and Mosaic for copyright infringement, false and misleading advertising, and unfair competition over their low-cost clones of 1-2-3, VP Planner and Twin, and sued Borland over its Quattro spreadsheet.[3]
In December 1989,[4] Xerox sued Apple over the Macintosh copyright.
Apple Computer was notable for its use of the term look and feel in reference to their Mac OS operating system. The firm tried, with some success, to block other software developers from creating software that had a similar look and feel. Apple argued that they had a copyright claim on the look and feel of their software, and even went so far as to sue Microsoft, alleging that the Windows operating system was illegally copying their look and feel.[5]
Although provoking a vehement reaction from some in the software community,[6] and causing Richard Stallman to form the League for Programming Freedom,[7] the expected landmark ruling never happened, as most of the issues were resolved based on a license that Apple had granted Microsoft for Windows 1.0. See: Apple v. Microsoft. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a copyright claim on the feel of a user interface in Lotus v. Borland.

More recent reactions
In 2012 and 2014, Apple Inc. has filed lawsuits against competing manufacturers of smartphones and tablet computers, claiming that those manufacturers copied the look and feel of Apple's popular iPhone and iPad products.[5][8][9]

In APIs
An API, which is an interface to software which provides some sort of functionality, can also have a certain look and feel. Different parts of an API (e.g. different classes or packages) are often linked by common syntactic and semantic conventions (e.g. by the same asynchronous execution model, or by the same way object attributes are accessed). These elements are rendered either explicitly (i.e. are part of the syntax of the API), or implicitly (i.e. are part of the semantics of the API)."

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject architecture: "Architecture is the art and technique of designing and building, as distinguished from the skills associated with construction.[3] It is both the process and the product of sketching, conceiving,[4] planning, designing, and constructing buildings or other structures.[5] The term comes from Latin architectura; from Ancient Greek [...] 'architect'; from [...] 'chief', and [...] 'creator'. Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilisations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements.[6]
[...] The earliest surviving text on architectural theories is the 1st century AD treatise De architectura by the Roman architect Vitruvius, according to whom a good building embodies firmitas, utilitas, and venustas (durability, utility, and beauty). Centuries later, Leon Battista Alberti developed his ideas further, seeing beauty as an objective quality of buildings to be found in their proportions. In the 19th century, Louis Sullivan declared that "form follows function". "Function" began to replace the classical "utility" and was understood to include not only practical but also aesthetic, psychological and cultural dimensions. [...]

Definitions
Architecture can mean:

Theory
The philosophy of architecture is a branch of philosophy of art, dealing with aesthetic value of architecture, its semantics and in relation to development of culture. Many philosophers and theoreticians from Plato to Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze,[11] Robert Venturi and Ludwig Wittgenstein have concerned themselves with the nature of architecture and whether or not architecture is distinguished from building.

Historic treatises
The earliest surviving written work on the subject of architecture is De architectura by the Roman architect Vitruvius in the early 1st century AD.[12] According to Vitruvius, a good building should satisfy the three principles of firmitas, utilitas, venustas,[13][14] commonly known by the original translation - firmness, commodity and delight. An equivalent in modern English would be:

According to Vitruvius, the architect should strive to fulfill each of these three attributes as well as possible. [...]

Modern concepts
The notable 19th-century architect of skyscrapers, Louis Sullivan, promoted an overriding precept to architectural design: "Form follows function". While the notion that structural and aesthetic considerations should be entirely subject to functionality was met with both popularity and skepticism, it had the effect of introducing the concept of "function" in place of Vitruvius' "utility". "Function" came to be seen as encompassing all criteria of the use, perception and enjoyment of a building, not only practical but also aesthetic, psychological and cultural.
Nunzia Rondanini stated, "Through its aesthetic dimension architecture goes beyond the functional aspects that it has in common with other human sciences. Through its own particular way of expressing values, architecture can stimulate and influence social life without presuming that, in and of itself, it will promote social development .... To restrict the meaning of (architectural) formalism to art for art's sake is not only reactionary; it can also be a purposeless quest for perfection or originality which degrades form into a mere instrumentality".[21]
[...]"

Comment
A model is utilized and created in the field of architecture and other arts and techniques.

The field of Software Technology (SwT) emerged in the 1990 and is the art and technique of designing and building, as distinguished from the skills associated with programming. It is both the process and the product of sketching, conceiving, planning, designing, and constructing software or other structures.
C.S. is one of the pioneers of this field and made significant contributions to the further development and establishment of the model-based and model-driven paradigms, specifically the ontology-based, unified modeling, and ontologic paradigms, while creating our Evoos and our OS.
Software architectural works, in the immaterial form of system architectures, frameworks, and components, and also software systems, platforms, applications, and services, are now also perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art as a result of our

• coherent Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS) architecture, and
• fusion of realities, and also
• foundations of many fields, specifically in the field of Distributed System (DS),

and

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),
  Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR).

What holds for SwT (immaterial and untangible) also holds for Hardware Technology (HwT) (material and tangible) and our

• fusion of realities,

and

• Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and
• Ontoscope (Os) (e.g. smartphone with Associative Memory (AM) or Assoicatively Addressable Memory (AMM) (e.g. BlackBoard System (BBS) (e.g. Tuple Space System (TSS)), Intelligent Agent System (IAS) (e.g. (voice-based or speech controlled) virtual assistant, Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) or Personal Intelligent Assistant (PIA)), Bionic processor, handheld, wearable, and implantable Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot))

Conclusion
The understanding and the ruling improved over the years.
Eventually, an original and unique work always enjoys a certain protection and must be exclusive to some extent, because otherwise no copyright would exist and no copyright protection would be possible. And this protection cannot be reversed by any later demand and use.
But it took much too long for the courts and lawmakers to finally understand that for example a look and feel other than a genre could also include art protected by the copyright. The same holds for other cases of substantial similarity in general and substantial similarity of the Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO) in particular, and also other aspects of a creative work, including software.

Interestingly, we came to the same tests of significant similarities and rulings by our own considerations.

The AFC test shows the same deficit in case of architecture as the Whelan logic respectively purpose-based test shows in case of software, because the AFC test is conceptually overbroad in this relation.

substantial similarity of an architecture, art style of architecture?

Segmentation or separation of idea and expression, specifically the functionality in relation to an architectural work, ontological argument, self-portrait, and other themes, visions, ideas, genres, etc.

style is general design or design

Game is genre or expressive element.

Architecture is genre or expressive element.

An architecture is more a compilation and therefore an expression of idea than a generalization of an idea and therefore a merger.

An original and unique architecture might be viewed as an essential facility regarding the allowance and licensing of its performance and reproduction without interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (trademark) rights.

But this is countered by the view of said architecture as a

specfically if another archtiecture is available as an alternative (e.g. user-level Virtualization vs. os-level Virtualization, Web Service (WS) vs. microService (mS)).

Clarification #1 of the 13th of January 2017

In the note Courts inconsistent regarding appstores of the 12th of December 2023 we already said the following: "Or simply said, in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) the aspects of our Evoos and our OS, which are copyrightable as expressive elements, are at least 1 metalevel higher." Therefore, one has to apply the substantial similarity test on the correct metalevels, whereby specific implementations are not relevant at all, because using multimedia and hardware and software are part of the expressions of idea, or better said the expressive elements.

By definition, architecture includes Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO) respectively order and arrangement. Therefore, any specific implementation would be a copyright infringement on this metalevel.
We even have given a collection of preexisting materials (e.g. software and hardware).

With what is wrongly called Large Language Model (LLM) and generative and creative Artificial Intelligence plagiarists have copied exactly 2 of the many parts, which differentiates our Evoos and our OntoBot from the prior art in the fields of

no LM, etc.,

{better explanation} no emergence (exception data mining),

no this and that,

no Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) respectively connectionist (neural) probabilistic LM (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)),

no this and that.

HardWare (HW) viewed and used as a device to play a game or access and envrionment is not copyright protected. But as a cybernetic reflection, cybernetic portrait, cybernetic augmentation, and cybernetic extension HW. In addition, a device is directly connected with an operating system (os) respectively our OS in our case.

AFC test suitable at all? How to apply and improve?

At this point, we always point out that others have to present an own, new expression of idea of the genres or in the fields of

No other scènes à faire (genre) issue, because our Evoos and our OS are original and unique works of art and thus have no established stock or common material, which would be ineligible for protection.
We also have discussed our ideas, creations or expression of ideas, innovations, and directions

We also have explained, why we have taken the fields of

If an entity takes these general ideas and also these original and unqiue, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted expressions of idea of C.S., then said entity

because these details and their compilations (collections and assemblings), and architectures, etc. are distinct expressions and are not merely a

their compilation (collection and assembling), selection, composition, integration, unification, fusion, according to a design, an architecture are expressive elements, which can be copyrightable, because existing materials have no monopoly regarding the copyright and new expressions of idea either.
An

and both perform and reproduce other essential elements of our Evoos and our OS.
Because there exists only our OM, other entities are eligible for utilizing the essential facilities of our SOPR under FRANDAC terms and conditions and inbetween other legal limits. In some cases, the latter could mean a stop of operation.

{correct formulation required} No merger issue, since the details of the art architecture used in the Evoos and the OS

Our unifying or coherent Ontologic Model (OM) is an expressive element of our Evoos. Our Evoos is a work of art and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and our generative and creative Bionics are expressive elements of the integrating, or unifying or coherent Evoos Architecture and OS Architecture, ontological argument or ontological proof, self-portrait, and so on.

Doubtlessly, no scènes à faire at all.
Obvioiusly, no merger since the details of the art style used in the Evoos and the OS architectures are not part of the ideas, rules, or functions of the ontological argument, self-portrait, etc. nor are they essential or inseparable from the ideas, rules, or functions of the game.

So no idea-expression issue exists at all, because either

Potentially, provision of the set of fundamental and essential facilities, technologies (e.g. subsystems and platforms), goods, and services of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
Definitiely, rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically exclusive moral rights of C.S..
Eventually, the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR are effective worldwide.

So no need to argue at all that missed follow-up opportunities exist in relation to the value of a business share respectively market capitalization.
Maybe we will revise related notes, such as for example the note SOPR able to show missed opportunities at stock markets of the 14th of December 2023.

Big tech companies and their satellite start-ups infringed the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation since 24 years.

The higher of apportioned

• withheld and thus outstanding royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• thwarted, obstructed, blocked, and otherwise missed commercial business possibilities and follow-up opportunities, including damages at the stock markets in accordance with the development of the value (e.g. market capitalization) of a company, which is directly connected with fraudulent and criminal actions in relation to said AWs and IPs,

by performing and reproducing our Evoos and our OS in whole or in part,

as total compensation.

Transfer of all illegal materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, etc..

Silicon Vally, Silicon Alley, et al insolvent.

22.December.2023

20:28 UTC+1
Roboticle Further steps

We expanded one of our robot series.

26.December.2023

15:37 UTC+1
Clarification

*** Work in progress - redundancies with other Clarification, various fields of computing ***

In relation to the Global Brain metaphor, hypothesis, vision, idea, or genre we have read the document titled "The Global Brain as an Emergent Structure from the Worldwide Computing Network", publicized in September of 1994, and cited in the document titled "The World-Wide Web as a Super-Brain: from metaphor to model" (see the Clarification of the 15th of December 2023).
It references for example

Eventually, we came to the same conclusion in relation to the works of prior art and our works of art once again and got some more insights.

Once again, these documents about the Global Brain are conceptual on a higher abstraction metalevel, but not technological and operational. Only rudimentary architectures for the realization and the implementation, and prototypes of the utilizations are presented in contrast to the TUNES-OS with the Arrow System, which still has significant deficits, and our Evoos, which seems to be the first one with a coherent architecture.

The discussed Global Brain is restricted to the fields of

It also lacks the fields of operating system (os), Resource-Oriented technologies (ROx), Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), BlackBoard technologies (BBx) (e.g. Tuple Space technologies (TSx), Space-Based technologies (SBx), etc.), and so on.

Howsoever, one can also see why Java Jini and JavaSpaces, and the rest of what is called Cloud 2.0 by us only for better understanding were developed and presented at the same time in 1998 and 1999, when C.S. created our Evoos, and we can now connect the Global Brain with the Cloud 2.0 (see also the Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well of the 16th of June 2023).

It focuses on the Internet and mentions that "[m]ore sophisticated hyper-text and hyper-media search tools have recently been developed. The most common ones are Wide Area Information Servers (WAIS), Gopher, and World Wide Web (WWW). [...] Other network tools include Prospero, Knowbots, and Netfind, which are described in [... relation to] Internet Resource Discovery Approaches. [...] There are other specialized network and information systems besides Internet."
Note that the so-called super-brain focuses on the fields of distributed hypermedia and software robot (software bot or softbot).

"We now make the analogy between the human brain and the Global Brain. [...]
The central information processing unit in the Global Brain is the user and his/her workstation, analogous to the neuronal cell body with its trigger zone.
The input-output links in the Global Brain are the Internet "lines", which include not only the cables, but also the satellite/microwave links, etc.; they function as the pathways for input and output to the user at the workstation on the Internet, just as the axons and dendrites function as the input and output pathways for the neuronal cell body with its trigger zone.
The basic unit of communication, or exchange, in the Global Brain is a message (packet) sent between two information-processing units on the Internet, analogous to a message (spike-train-initiated chemical or electrical signal) sent across a synapse between two neurons in the brain.
Thus we take the connectionist viewpoint. In its most basic, abstract sense, we can say that we are looking at a system of information processing units, or nodes, linked to each other with connections which transmit input to and output from the processing units."
Honestly, this is a little too abstract in relation to the field of connectionism. In fact, we cannot find any Teaching, Suggestion, and Motivation (TSM) about subsymbolic paradigms or mathematical models known as connectionist networks or Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) at all. Eventually, the authors are talking about the fields of Knowledge Management (KM) and Information System (IS). Thus, the authors of the Global Brain still take the viewpoint of the symbolic, logic-based paradigms of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The message (packet) shows why the interest, importance, and activity increased in the fields of

and why we also added the field of

and created our Evoos.

"Use of multiple modalities for information transfer and processing: [...] auditory and visual signals can be integrated on the network through the link-up of TV, video, and computer, or all five sensory modalities could be integrated with the network through virtual reality link-ups to the Internet system."

This shows why the interest, importance, and activity increased in the field of

and why we also added this field and created the "assignment of the physiological senses to a possible underlying hardware" with our Evoos (see chapter 5 Summary of The Proposal).

"Associative memory: [...]
One prerequisite of associative memory in a computer network is global, real-time [footnote] 5 access to information which is distributed not only geographically but also across disciplines."
[Footnote 5] "By real time we would in this context understand reliable information exchange within the order of minutes to hours as it is the case in direct e-mail exchanges."
"A second prerequisite for associative memory on the global network is a highly-interconnected structure of knowledge links. This feature is currently ported over to the Internet via the World Wide Web (WWW)."
It lacks real-time processing.
The relation to the field of Associative Memory (AM) or Associatively-Addressable (AAM) also shows why the itnerest, importance, and activity increased in the fields of

"Integrated processing: [...] If we are approaching latencies comparable to those in the brain (and correspondingly high data transfer rates) then we have a truly shared situation, where the location of the data or the execution of the program does not matter anymore. Instead [...] we can leave both program and data in place and access both remotely and generate a synchronous problem-solving approach, not on the level of parallel computation but on the integrated activities of humans and computers across the global network."

"Dreaming: [...]
One can come up with many analogies of the functional role of dreams in the context of the Global Brain. We suggest considering computer simulations of models about the world as fulfilling some of these functions; simulations could identify models that produce outcomes that are obviously wrong and reject them. [...]
Another function of dreams - to compose new realities by putting together familiar elements into novel constructs - can also be realized in computer simulations and in virtual reality environments. [...] Modern simulation interfaces will also allow several individuals to participate in the same simulation across the Internet. One complex example of how this might look in a geographically-oriented simulation is the multi-player version of SimCity [...]"
This also shows why we added Computational Intelligence (CI) and Soft Computing (SC) (Fuzzy Logic (FL), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Probabilistic Model (PM or ProM), and Genetic Algorithm (GA)), Genetic Programming (GP), generative and creative technologies, Cognitive Model (CM), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL), Language Model (LM), Ontologic Model (OM), etc..
also Computing with Words (CwW), Dialog System (DS or DiaS), Conversational System (CS or ConS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), etc.
Obviously, the Global Brain lacks Mediated Reality (MedR), including Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), etc., and did not make the large step of making it all a New Reality (NR) beyond the Metaverse.
dreamworld, worldview, belief system, bridge, etc.
This also shows no Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Industry 4.0, etc. with Ontologic holon (Onton), including digital twin, etc..

"[...] the capabilities of a Global Brain would include the ability to learn, to adapt, and to habituate. We would expect it to solve problems in a decentralized manner and in a changing environment. We would expect it to be robust in the face of many perturbations. It would be capable of developing automated forms of responses for [(list points added)]:

This could be viewed as an abstract suggestion of a part of what became the part of our Evoos, which is the field of Autonomic technologies (Ax), including Autonomic Computing (AC) and Autonomic Networking (AN). But in this context, we cannot find any relation to the fields of operating system (os), SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, MAS, etc.), Immobot, and so on.

"The Global Brain would develop a response to the external environment that goes beyond simple reflex capabilities to active shaping of the environment and choice of responses. Thus, a Global Brain derived from a complex information and communications network composed of people and computers would be able to sense and respond to the world outside that network as well as within that network, with abilities that would be analogous to our brain's abilities but which would surpass the abilities of our own brains."

"These models utilize online data acquisition - from weather stations, user group polls, or electronic news services, for example - to provide the latest information to the model."
The relation to the fields of Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Networked Embedded System (NES),
shows why we integrated them with Ontology-Based technologies (OBx) and Industry 4.0 and 5.0, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), etc..

"These models are not restricted to the computing power at one's location, because they can utilize resources across the network."
"[...] computation tends to be done remotely on large computers that are accessed through some network. [...]
[...] use sotware that can run a computer "kernel" on a remote machine, with a "front-end" on a local workstation.
[...] The concept of having computer servers completely transparent to the user on the network is discussed in a meta-computer context. In that scenario specific programs can be run from any personal computer or workstation connected to the network, and they can be executed on any computer or supercomputer without the intervention of the user who runs the program. For the user the appearance would be that of a single, powerful computer environment."
But a detailed look shows that

• job scheduling, for example of an operating system or a complete Grid System (GS) or GC platform, and
• planning, for example of an MAS or an rational agent system.

Interestingly, the field of metacomputing is also the basis for the fields of

• reflective Object-Oriented (OO) Distributed operating system (Dos) (e.g. TUNES OS and Aperion (Apertos (Muse)), and
• reflective Object-Oriented (OO) Multimedia operating system (Mos) (e.g. variant of Choices and μChoices),

and

• Service-Oriented Programming (SOP) and
• federated metacomputing.

Eventually, one can also see once again how far ahead we already were with our Evoos.

"The result is models which [(list points added)]:

"Future modeling approaches will have to tap into the global wisdom of informal, anecdotal, and descriptive knowledge as well as into the results of extensive quantitative analysis and supercomputer computations."
These are merely simulation models as part of Problem Solving Environment (PSE).
The relation to the fields of Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), and Networked Embedded System (NES),
But honestly, this is too abstract in relation to for example the work titled "The Virtual Service Grid: An Architecture for Delivering High-End Network Services", and the field of Cluster Computing (CC), including "Parallel Computing on Wide-Area Clusters: the Albatross Project", Business Intelligence (BI), Visualization, and Analytics (BIVA), and Data Science and Analytics (DSA), including Big Data technologies (BDx), and so on.
and also no Robotics, Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), etc., Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), etc.

"Future models will have to be object-oriented with links to other models and information systems, and they will have to be adaptive to changing basic conditions."

"With the help of supercomputers the simulation of a few million simplified agents should be feasible and should capture the essential elements that can lead to diferent types of collective behavior. [...] agent-based model [...]"
This should not be confused with the fields of Agent-Based System (ABS), specifically Multi-Agent System (MAS), and Swarm Intelligence (SI), but more with the simulation of swarm behaviour.

As shown in the case of the super-brain, the Global Brain lacks other subsymbolic, connectionist, emergence-driven paradigms, specifically Artificial Neural Network (ANN), hybrid subsymbolic and symbolic approaches, Soft Computing (SC), and also Common Sense Computing (CSC).
It also lacks such a unified metamodel and a coherent model.

The specific approach of self-organization and evolution is by far not sufficient.
And as we always explain in relation to emergence-driven approaches, they lack control, safety, security, validation, verification, resilience, trustworthyness, etc..

"One of the main challenges will be the interconnection of all the distributed computational and information units [...]."

Conclusion
And then came C.S., looked at it, corrected it, cured the deficits, and simply created it anew. And since then, the world catched fire and we have a white, yellow, or red line between the works of prior art on the one side and the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. on the other side.
This shows that other expressions of idea in relation to the next generation of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), Metaverse, and also the Global Brain and super-brain are possible.

Like the Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), MAS, Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), etc., the Global Brain is no legal loophole.
And as we always say in this situation, they have nothing of the substructure (e.g. the foundations of the next generation of the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW)) and have not much of the superstructure (e.g. Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS)).

By the way:

27.December.2023

16:37 and 19:06 UTC+1
New York Times completely wrong regarding copyright

Our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics are (essential parts of the) original and unique works of art created by C.S. and therefore constitute transformative and new expressions of idea respectively derivative works, and therefore are covered by the fair dealing and fair use doctrine respectively exclusion of the copyright in total contrast to the plagiarisms and fakes of others.

See once again the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein.

But indeed, the Lanham (Trademark) rights are effective, though an infringment of them has to be proven in every single case by showing a

See once again the note

The claims about the future of journalism are utter nonsense.

We also note that no media company has the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), but are misleading the public about the existence and the true origin of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

See also the note

The companies Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google) and Anthropic, Meta (Facebook), Nvidia, Adobe, and Co. should tell the truth and have to tell the truth at the courts.
Then they should ask their share holders, if they want to

specifically in relation to the payment of damage compensations and the transfer of all illegal materials, etc. to us and the business takeovers by us.
Do not destroy any coherent Ontologic Model (OM), because our SOPR is allowed to build, train, hold, and use them.

28.December.2023

17:11 and 22:40 UTC+1
KG, P2PC, WS, HiL, etc. in GB, but GB, os, VM, MC, Jini, ANN, etc. in Evoos

*** Sketching mode ***

Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG)
Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC)
Web Services (WS)
MetaComputing (MC or MetaC)
Virtual Machine (VM)
Java Jini and JavaSpaces (Jini)
Human-in-the-Loop (HiL) and User-in-the-Loop (UiL) approach
Evolutionary operating system (Evoos)
Global Brain (GB)

GB 1.0 is inspired by a brain-like autonomic system with Associative Memory (AM), Artificial Life (AL)
shows Swarm Intelligence (SI), Semantic Network (SN), KG, foundation of Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), P2PC, WS, sensory multimodal information transfer and processing, TeleVision (TV), Virtual Reality (VR),
inspires Autonomic Computing (AC)

GB 1.0 lacks

The detailed analysis of the differences between the GB 1.0 and our Evoos

• osVM,
• P2PVM,
• foundations of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) and mSOA,
• BlackBoard System (BBS) and GridC,
• Semantic GridC, Cognitive GridC,
• Industry 4.0,
• etc.,

shows the overall scandal and what is truly going on since around 1995 and 1996
makes the segmentation or separation trick in relation to works of prior art and the destruction trick in relation to our creations (e.g. Cloud 2.0 and Cloud 3.0, mSOA, Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), metaverse multiverse, transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, Ontologic System Components (OSC), Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), etc.) even more obvious
provides more evidences for the fraudulent and serious criminal actions in 1998 and 1999 and explains more observations of this era
sharpens red line even more
improves legal position tremendously once again, despite KG and HiL

The better insight demands revised assessments of the legal scopes of others and us, and considerations of legal activities, but does not change the legal matters, but merely shifts or/and supports them.

11:51 PM and 31:33 UTC+1
SOPR makes last call for 90% + 10%

The rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation never were, never are, and never will be discussible, negotiable, and democratizable, because they are 100% + 0%.

Please keep in mind that without damage compensations, exclusive infrastructures, etc., as demanded, no allowance and license in one way or another by our SOPR.

31.December.2023

02:16, and 13:04 UTC+1
Alphabet (Google) escalates situation without gain

*** Work in progress - some few better wordings, maybe a thought missing ***
We only say

Specifically, our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) also already includes what is wrongly called cloud-native by creation and design.

See for example the

to get a first introduction to the subject matter.

Our SOPR also prohibited the provision of

Our SPOR also made clear that the implementation of parts of our Evoos and our OS as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is prohibited by the

Obviously, that segmentation or separation trick does not work anymore, if it ever worked at all in relation to the copyright, because the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) are also part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Specifically in this case, our original and unique osVM, osV, NV, and P2PVM, and also mSOA are part of the copyrighted vision, expression of idea, creation, compilation (collection and assembling), selection, arrangement, composition, integration, unification, fusion, and also foundation, design, architecture, components, applications, and services, art assets, and look and feel manifestations, because they do not "limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea" and therefore no merger does exist (see for example the lawsuits Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive and Spry Fox v. Lolaps).
Moreover, the virtualization is utilized for the metaphysical, cybernetical, and ontological aspects and dynamics, specifically the reflection of the consciousness, thinking, and spirit of the cybernetic self-portrait, which

Similarly, the basic properties of (mostly) being kernel-less reflective/fractal/holonic are utilized for other aspects and dynamics of the Ontologic Zero O#, the ontological argument or ontological proof, the belief system, and the Ontoverse (Ov).

If the basic property of (mostly) being kernel-less and the basic functionality of virtualization (e.g. operating system Virtualization Machine (osVM), operating system-level Virtualization (osV) and containerization, Network Virtualization (NV), and Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM)) would be ruled as merger, which will not happen due to the other legal arguments of a sui generis, an architecture, and so on, then once again the presentation and interpretation as a self-portrait would become relevant and decisive.
Indeed, an individual is allowed to make a self-portrait as for example a cybernetic reflection or a digital twin on the basis of our OS, but only as an own work of art. Furthermore, a connection with other self-portraits in our Ontoverse (Ov) and our New Reality (NR) is only made by C.S..

As in the case of an original and unique Application Programming Interface (API), licensing the utilization of the essential facilities of our SOPR under FRANDAC terms and conditions and inbetween other legal limits already solves any legal issue. But we do note that in these specific case providing this part of our Evoos and our OS is voluntary on the part of C.S..

The OS with its Ontoverse (Ov) is literally spoken a holistic world, universe, and reality of its own.

The so-called Hypercomputer SuperComputing (SC or SupC) infrastructure of the company Alphabet (Google) is the next evidence that it has taken the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as sources of inspiration and blueprints without allowance and licensing to

Of course, this does constitute at least an infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation even with an Intraconnected supercomputer (Intrasup) configuration and environment.
But Google is also doing it across its worldwide data centers, which shows that it is also an Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup) configuration and environment, which again is part of our Ontologic Net (ON), which again is part of our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), which again is part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

We also discussed the aspects of

and that only our SOPR is able to provide it.

And no, no doctrine, no exclusion, and no this and that of the

• copyright law,
• Lanham (Trademark) Act, and
• Sherman Act,

does apply, specifically

We once again quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test: "Eliminating elements dictated by external factors is an application of the scènes à faire doctrine to computer programs. The doctrine holds that elements necessary for, or standard to, expression in some particular theme cannot be protected by copyright.[11] Elements dictated by external factors may include hardware specifications, interoperability and compatibility requirements, design standards, demands of the market being served, and standard programming techniques.[12]"

Comment
But the emphasis is on "may include", which only applies, if a

• APIs and architectures are copyrightable, and
• moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights are violated.

We also already discussed the themes

and showed that many different possibilities exist to create an expression of idea.

Compare with for example the initial Global Brain, and other original and unique expressions of idea,

The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test can be misused by following its bottom-up approach and filtering out architectural elements on the lower metalevels at first.
But for sure, that does not work, if a work of art

as we already discussed in the note SOPR studied classic idea-expression lawsuitsof the 19th of December 2023.

Eventually, all legal ways lead to the essential facilities provided as exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

substantial similarity, including similar or even identical architectures, art assets, and total concept, overall look and feel manifestations

And that segmentation or separation trick was always illegal if the fraudulent and even serious criminal acts are approached with a holistic view, specifically in relation to

In addition, we already explained that no entity can afford and wants to afford such an illegal infrastructure.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein.

Also note that an infrastructure, system, platform, etc. is no application and service, and therefore higher royalties are due than 15 to 30%. And what they are illegally doing with their data centers costs legally 37%.

See also the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims of the last months, specifically

and the other publications cited therein or/and publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

And we do get more and more support even by our hardest critiques exclusive the very well known ideological extremists and terrorists, because we do all in the correct way. The whole thing, our OS, will be realized as C.S. and our corporation allows and decides, but not as one of those illegal monopolies and cliques wants to.