which shows the corruption even more.

We already investigated and documented the same opinions, strategies, and activities in relation to the

for our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR).

Therefore, there is no need to start anything in this relation, because we own the foundational original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S. since their publications in the years 1999 and 2006.

We repeat once again that the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU) should

anymore.
Instead of supporting legal monopolies the EC and market regulators of member states of the EU are disturbing them by refusing to crack down on illegal monopolies and break them up. What kind of mindset and attitude is that? At least one can see now even much better, why they act as they do.

But no manufacturer, specifically the hardware companies, and no provider, specifically the U.S.American companies Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta (Facebook), and also Alphabet (Google), will risk of collaborating in the next fraudulent and even serious criminal activities of the EC in relation to the original and unique AWs and further IPs included in the oeuvre of C.S., because they never could afford that, they simply cannot afford that, and they will not afford that. Quite contrary, we are doing now what the EC is refusing to do and bring back law and order into the market.
See also for example the note Success story continues and no end in sight - More evidences of the 28th of February 2023 (yesterday).

And we certainly do not let anyone drive us in relation to our original and unqiue, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System, created by C.S., and exclusively managed and exploited by our corporation with the consent and on the behalf of C.S.. If somebody has the intention to accelerate something or avoid the waste of time, then the only option is to get in direct contact with us.
And we made crystal clear in the last weeks that we will

Our legal actions could be implemented and concluded in some few months or several years.
Consequently, whether the 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G) start in the year 2030, the year 2033, or later depends solely on our progress, which in turn also depends on the support we receive from other entities.

07.March.2023

05:01 and 05:31 UTC+1
SOPR finalizing restitution of GC and CFEC

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)
Grid Computing (GC)
Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CFEC)

Our SOPR is finalizing the restitution of the part of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS), which is called by us Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) subsystem and platform, and is also wrongly called app store, Web Services (WS) platform, and Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog (CFE) system and platform.
So far we have drafted a direct approach and an indirect approach.

• splash screen, splash jingle, or another splash means at the first use of one of the
  • OAOS platforms, which are still provided by an affected OAOSP, or
  • OAOS, which are still executed on an OAOS platform provided by an affected OAOSP,

  and

• visual, acoustical, or other kind of message always after a
  • certain time or certain number of uses, or
  • when a specific feature is used,

  which is similar to applications, which for example always show an advertising message in a free test version.

OAOS are exempted or will be freed from these messages, if they are publicized, and executed and provided, and also operated, managed, and orchestrated on the subsystems and platforms respectively the servers respectively in the data centers of our SOPR or our Main Contractors (MCs) exclusively.

See the related publications

08:59 UTC+1
SOPR checking costs for 5G and following

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)
5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G)

We quote and translate a report, which is about the F.R.German government and 5G: "Ban on Chinese 5G components?
The German government will apparently prohibit the use of some components from Chinese manufacturers in the expansion of the 5G network. [...]
[...]
Probably it will not remain with individual decisions: According to the information, the German government apparently wants to reform the entire testing process. Network operators such as [Deutsche] Telekom, Vodafone, or Telefónica [(O2)] would then probably have to rely on equipment suppliers other than Huawei or ZTE, for example Ericsson or Nokia, for the 5G network. Such a replacement is considered complex and expensive.
[...]"

Comment
Because what is wrongly called Future Internet, New Generation Network (NGN) (e.g. Centric/Named networking), Software-Defined Networking (SDN), 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems of the Next Generation (5G NG) and 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G), and so on are parts of our Ontologic Net (ON), which again is a part of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR, our SOPR is checking to what extent we would and will take over the costs for such a replacement respectively update to our 5G NG mobile communication standard.

See also the notes

08.March.2023

04:44 UTC+1
TAG Heuer has to stop mimicking C.S. immediately

The watchmaker TAG Heuer is using the term Connected Calibre

We already discussed this specific issue in relation to a payment service of the company Meta (Facebook) some few years ago, which implies once again that TAG Heuer and Alphabet (Google) are totally aware about our prohibition due to said legal reasons and at least TAG Heuer acted deliberately.
But we also see the extension and deepening of the conspiracy and plot of both companies for various reasons, as we are also observing with the extension and deepening of the conspiracy and plot of Alphabet (Google) and Samsung for example.

Furthermore, according to the

it is prohibited to

• C.S. to confuse the public about the true origin of our original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and futher Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and
• our corporation to confuse the public about the true origin of our performances and achievements,

and

Moreover, that illegal Wear OS will be substituted by at least one

of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) anyway, and if TAG Heuer or any other company refuses to utilize these cores and movements, then our SOPR will take decisive measures, such as refuse the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), specifically the

05:29 and 09:58 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

Our offer for the

has not changed and still is on the table to guarantee open trade, realize and enjoy the win-win, and promote collective harmony, continuity, stability, and prosperity.

Because fairness is one of our guidelines, we would like to submit the same offer also to the company ZTE.

19:42 UTC+1
Success story continues and no end in sight

Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts, and Jeffrey Watumull discussed a part of our orignal and unique works of art titled

all created by C.S..
We quote an opionion, which is about a specific part of our generative SoftBionics (SB) paradgim, Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), and Ontologic System (OS), as well as related partial plagiarisms and implementations, and was publicized today in a newspaper to mislead the public once again about our creations and achievements: "Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT
[...]
The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.
For instance, a young child acquiring a language is developing - unconsciously, automatically and speedily from minuscule data - a grammar, a stupendously sophisticated system of logical principles and parameters. This grammar can be understood as an expression of the innate, genetically installed "operating system" that endows humans with the capacity to generate complex sentences and long trains of thought. When linguists seek to develop a theory for why a given language works as it does ("Why are these - but not those - sentences considered grammatical?"), they are building consciously and laboriously an explicit version of the grammar that the child builds instinctively and with minimal exposure to information. The child's operating system is completely different from that of a machine learning program.
Indeed, such programs are stuck in a prehuman or nonhuman phase of cognitive evolution. Their deepest flaw is the absence of the most critical capacity of any intelligence: to say not only what is the case, what was the case and what will be the case - that's description and prediction - but also what is not the case and what could and could not be the case. Those are the ingredients of explanation, the mark of true intelligence.
Here's an example. Suppose you are holding an apple in your hand. Now you let the apple go. You observe the result and say, "The apple falls." That is a description. A prediction might have been the statement "The apple will fall if I open my hand." Both are valuable, and both can be correct. But an explanation is something more: It includes not only descriptions and predictions but also counterfactual conjectures like "Any such object would fall," plus the additional clause "because of the force of gravity" or "because of the curvature of space-time" or whatever. That is a causal explanation: "The apple would not have fallen but for the force of gravity." That is thinking.
The crux of machine learning is description and prediction; it does not posit any causal mechanisms or physical laws. Of course, any human-style explanation is not necessarily correct; we are fallible. But this is part of what it means to think: To be right, it must be possible to be wrong. Intelligence consists not only of creative conjectures but also of creative criticism. Human-style thought is based on possible explanations and error correction, a process that gradually limits what possibilities can be rationally considered. (As Sherlock Holmes said to Dr. Watson, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.")
But ChatGPT and similar programs are, by design, unlimited in what they can "learn" (which is to say, memorize); they are incapable of distinguishing the possible from the impossible. Unlike humans, for example, who are endowed with a universal grammar that limits the languages we can learn to those with a certain kind of almost mathematical elegance, these programs learn humanly possible and humanly impossible languages with equal facility. Whereas humans are limited in the kinds of explanations we can rationally conjecture, machine learning systems can learn both that the earth is flat and that the earth is round. They trade merely in probabilities that change over time.
[...]
Perversely, some machine learning enthusiasts seem to be proud that their creations can generate correct "scientific" predictions (say, about the motion of physical bodies) without making use of explanations (involving, say, Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation). But this kind of prediction, even when successful, is pseudoscience. While scientists certainly seek theories that have a high degree of empirical corroboration, as the philosopher Karl Popper noted, "we do not seek highly probable theories but explanations; that is to say, powerful and highly improbable theories."
[...]
True intelligence is also capable of moral thinking. This means constraining the otherwise limitless creativity of our minds with a set of ethical principles that determines what ought and ought not to be (and of course subjecting those principles themselves to creative criticism). To be useful, ChatGPT must be empowered to generate novel-looking output; to be acceptable to most of its users, it must steer clear of morally objectionable content. But the programmers of ChatGPT and other machine learning marvels have struggled - and will continue to struggle - to achieve this kind of balance.
In 2016, for example, Microsoft's Tay chatbot (a precursor to ChatGPT) flooded the internet with misogynistic and racist content, having been polluted by online trolls who filled it with offensive training data. How to solve the problem in the future? In the absence of a capacity to reason from moral principles, ChatGPT was crudely restricted by its programmers from contributing anything novel to controversial - that is, important - discussions. It sacrificed creativity for a kind of amorality.
[...]
Note, for all the seemingly sophisticated thought and language, the moral indifference born of unintelligence. Here, ChatGPT exhibits something like the banality of evil: plagiarism and apathy and obviation. It summarizes the standard arguments in the literature by a kind of super-autocomplete, refuses to take a stand on anything, pleads not merely ignorance but lack of intelligence and ultimately offers a "just following orders" defense, shifting responsibility to its creators implementers.
In short, ChatGPT and its brethren are constitutionally unable to balance creativity with constraint. They either overgenerate (producing both truths and falsehoods, endorsing ethical and unethical decisions alike) or undergenerate (exhibiting noncommitment to any decisions and indifference to consequences). Given the amorality, faux science and linguistic incompetence of these systems, we can only laugh or cry at their popularity.
[...]"

Comment
What should we say? Maybe the master found his master, or being more constructive, thank you for the flowers.
And what should we ask? Maybe the one master made a volatility error and simply forgot to cite and reference the original and unique, copyrighted works of art and related publications of the other master.

Also note that the example with the apple is about Newton, gravity, space-time, and physics, and therefore related to our Caliber or Calibre, Space and Time Computing and Networking (STCN), or correctly said Ontologic Computing and Networking (OCN), and so on.

As we said before, the implementers of such large models focused on quantity, brute force, but not quality, as well as stealing the related parts of our works of art, stealing the show of C.S., and misleading the public about the true origin of our works of art.

See also our

See also our related publications, like for example

Howsoever, we find the way highly entertaining how the authors unmask and dismantle the hype.

11.March.2023

17:51 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We are working on the applications of the first interim injunctions regarding our

Since the September 2017 until the December 2022, we have made an offer on our website of OntomaX in relation to modifying and opening our Ontologic System (OS), and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS, and worked out, discussed, and revised a legal framework with Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions. But in the course of this, it turned out that certain and too many entities and cliques are only trying to

Since this attempt respectively serious criminal fraud is continuing, and the infringements are so extensive and serious that C.S. and our corporation, as the applicants, cannot reasonably be expected to endure lengthy court proceedings at any time, and their rights, specifically in cases of

are to be protected immediately.
With each additional day, the risk of irreparable damage increases and the irreparable damage continues to increase (damage to integrity, quality of life, loss of time for activities, artistic work, loss of entrepreneurial momentum, follow-up orders, etc.).there is at all times a special urgency for an interim injunction exists at any time. This means it is just a formal act, which becomes effective instantly.
We already informed manufacturers of Ontoscope variants and Communication Service Providers (CSPs) to prepare for such an order (e.g. no sale of what is wrongly called smartphone, iPhone, iPad, smartwatch, smartspeaker, smartdisplay, smartTV, smartcar, etc.).
We also do inform now other affected Service Providers (SPs) to take preparations for the shut down of their data centers, as well as platforms, applications, and services.

The internal legal teams and external legal counsel of the affected entities will immediately conclude after studying the related legal documents that our demands will be successful and their appeals against said injunctions will be a waste of time at the courts.

Please also note that we will inform law enforcement authorities worldwide about the records at the courts, so that they have to exercise their due diligence and go after the bad actors in their duty area after becoming aware about those activities of others.

And we will also get rid of the last fraudulent crypto tulips and those criminal AI, ML, etc. entities and endeavours (the emphasize is on fraudulent and criminal).

We will get back all of the rights, properties, reputations, and momenta, as well as missed follow-up opportunities, and so on of C.S. and our corporation and in addition either those companies or their insolvencies as damages.

14.March.2023

09:22 UTC+1
Meta (Facebook) still in LaLaLand

The company Meta (Facebook) said that it is considering a standalone social networking platform for another short messaging service or what is described as timely sharing (text) updates about interests. The difference to its WhatsApp service is that this other platform would be based on a decentralized architecture with distributed servers operated by users.
For sure, our fans and readers have directly recognized that the company is talking about the underlying technology for our Social and Societal System (SSS) subsystem and platform of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

And we are sure that the responsible decision makers at Meta (Facebook) do know very well that we are taking back the control over our

which implies that we will also decide which OAOS are preinstalled on the many variants of our Os.
And at the moment our SOPR has absolutely no interest that all that crap of Meta (Facebook) will be part of such a preset, as is the case for certain OAOS of the fields of

and for certain systems like for example

Meta (Facebook) and other members of that trolling, blackmailing, and conspiring cartel in the Silicon Valley, on the Silicon Alley, and at other locations have 2 options: Either

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR),

or

By the way:

09:44 and 11:11 UTC+1
70% + 30%, but not 17% and 51% + 49%

See also the notes

In addition, it is highly questionable if a politician, a scientist, a manager, or another person abides by the rules of any legal agreement, as we have observed since more than 25 years now.

There will also be no special rules for any minorities and we directly warn against any attempts to introduce such special rules, because they would be extremely limiting for the freedom of any minority being affected.

11:59, 12:36, and 17:00 UTC+1
Porsche SE/Volkswagen still in LaLaLand

What we are hearing in the last years is that the company Porsche SE/Volkswagen do not respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and do not want to do so in the future, exactly like the companies Microsoft, Amazon, Meta (Facebook), Alphabet (Google), and Co.. But they must and they will in some few months or face jail and other serious legal actions.

In fact, their founders and shareholders are not willing to give in and comply with

while we are beginning to exploit the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation maximally.

This maximization includes the

• production,
• completion, and
• assembly, as well as
• validation and verification

of the modules in the fields of Network System (NetS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) of access places and access devices to the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) of our OS respectively in our Ontoverse (Ov), such as all variants of our Ontoscope (Os) (see the Ontoscope Further steps of the 22nd of February 2023 and the other references cited therein), and

For example, Porsche SE/Volkswagen has not stopped the mimicking of C.S. and our corporation, but now wants to

Besides this, it is obvious that they want to steal our electric energy storage technology and other things, and even our whole corporation.

Another peak of impudence is that Porsche SE/Volkswagen is infringing the rights and stealing the properties of C.S. and our corporation for its Audi, Porsche, and other brands, and then takes Porsche as a brand to the stock exchange, which ultimately also sells part of said infringed rights and stolen properties and stolen corporation to the public without legal basis in general and without our permission in particular.
Than they even want to increase the bad actions with the money illegally appropriated in this way.
They also want to do the same with other brands and subsidiaries.
Of course, we will also discuss this in court and have it legally clarified.

Therefore, it is not sure at all if our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS) with its

• Ontoscope on Wheels or Ontoscope with Wheels,

to the company Porsche SE/Volkswagen at least in the U.S.America and the P.R.China, as well as other countries.

In addition, we are also attacking fraudulent and even serious criminal business partners and the other members of certain trolling and blackmailing and conspiring cartels and cliques frontal to isolate Porsche SE/Volkswagen and other manufacturers of our products, which they have stolen from us, even more and also remove other sources of blocking, interfering, stealing, and so on.

The same holds for other (partial) State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) of European cliques, such as Airbus, Deutsche Telekom, and so on.

Our truly objective recommendation to manufacturers of vehicles is to learn to become our suppliers (see also the Ontoscope Further steps of the 22nd of February 2023).
And we cannot see that alleged outstanding potential, specifically if it is solely based on the permanent infringement of national and international laws, etc., specifically the rights and properties of others.

15.March.2023

08:39 and 11:21 UTC+1
SOPR will not repeat laws, regulations, ToS, etc.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not repeat the regulations and Terms of Service (ToS), specifically in relation to our

If an entity still has not understood this, then she, he, or they either

Any entitiy concerned, such as for example a company providing or utilizing our evolutionary SoftBionics (SB) and generative SoftBionics (SB) paradigms, our new (online) search engine, our new chatbot system, our new recommender system, our new Question Answering (QA) system, our new dialog system, our new conversational system, our new virtual assistant, etc., and also others and ours Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on and integrated with them, a large language model, large image model, or any other such large SB model, created with and included in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), should keep in mind, and we are sure that the responsible politicians of governments and decision makers of companies do know very well, that

• Os,
• OAOS,
• OAOS platforms,
• ON, OW, and OV, which collectively are our Ov, infrastructure with its set of fundamental and essential
  • facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
  • technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
  • goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
  • services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models),
• and so on,

which implies that we will also decide which OAOS are preinstalled on the many variants of our Os.
And at the moment, our SOPR has absolutely no interest that certain OAOS of the field of Communication and Collaboration (CoCo), SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI or ComI) (e.g. Artifical Neural Network (ANN) and Evolutionary Computing (EC)), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or Cognitive System (CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.), including QA, recommender, chatbot, assistant, and whatsoever based on our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and other parts of our Evoos and OS, of certain companies will be part of such a preset.

Companies, specifically members of that trolling, blackmailing, and conspiring cartel in the Silicon Valley, on the Silicon Alley, and at other locations, federal cliques, and other groupings have 2 options: Either

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR),

or

In the next months or even years, we are just focusing and working on the confirmation of the legal situation in relation to the moral rights and (the other parts of) the copyrights for the

and the execution of the corresponding actions, as well as other personal rights, competition rights, and so on.
Actually, we are explaining attorneys, who are not experts of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and automotive industrial sectors, the general legal situations, and adding some details in case of a crypto criminal entity.

16.March.2023

10:35, 12:40, and 16:18 UTC+1
OpenAI still in LaLaLand

specifically our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) component.
All of them were created by C.S. and are exclusively exploited by our SOPR with the consent and on behalf of C.S., but none of OpenAI's so-called models will get around this infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

We also quote a report, which is about that newest plagiarism of our OntoBot and was publicized on the 15th of March 2023 (yesterday): "[...]
In addition to working with text, [the illegal] GPT-4 can analyze the contents of images. OpenAI hasn't released this feature to the public yet, out of concerns over how it could be misused. But in a livestreamed demo on Tuesday [...] OpenAI's president, shared a powerful glimpse of its potential.
He snapped a photo of a drawing he'd made in a notebook - a crude pencil sketch of a website. He fed the photo into GPT-4 and told the app to build a real, working version of the website using HTML and JavaScript. In a few seconds, GPT-4 scanned the image, turned its contents into text instructions, turned those text instructions into working computer code and then built the website. The buttons even worked.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that they tried the demonstration before making the demonstration or even recorded it and showed it later.
Furthermore, we note that it is a multimodal functionality created with our Evoos and integrated in our OntoBot.
Also note the interaction with our Ontoscope (Os), also wrongly called smartphone, iPhone, and so on.

But that demonstrated Ontologic Application (OA) is neither new nor powerful at all, but only replicates our integration of advanced Optical character recognition (OCR), which can also recognize charts and other graphics, and automatic code generation of a visual Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tool (for example for the object modeling languages and methodologies Object-Oriented Software Engineering (OOSE), Object-oriented Systems Modeling (OSM), and Unified Modeling Language (UML)) or Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for Visual Programming (VP) of around the year 1995.

We also do know that the lying press does know that OpenAI and other entities are infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, because they are trying to circumvent said rights and properties, and camouflage their fraudulent actions by using misleading terms, like for example (Artificial Intelligence (AI)) language model, chatbot, textrobot, textbot, and so on. It just only an implementation of the original and unqiue expressions of ideas of C.S. for an intelligent multimodal technology and a cybernetic self-portrait, which began with the fields of philosophy, biology, epistemology, Cybernetics (Cyb), operating system (os), and HardBionics (HB) and SoftBionics (SB) (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), including Fuzzy Logic (FL), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), and Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Autonomic Computing (AC), Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Image Processing (NIP) and Natural Image Understanding (NIU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Mulltimodal Understanding (NMU), Cognitive Computing (CogC), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc.).
Some kind of Generate 'n' Test (GnT) and reflection is also utilized (see our OntoBot), or being more precise a partially generated output sequence of the decoder part of a transformer Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) is improved in an iterative and incremental developement process or generative process by using it as input of the decoder part until the output meets a certain quantity or quality or both (see the basic property of Total Quality Management (TQM) of our Ontologic System (OS)).

Even the

• field of Fuzzy Logic (FL), the Computing with Words (CwW) paradigm ("Fuzzy logic = Computing with Words" and "From Computational Linguistics to Computing with Words"),
• extension "From CL to CwW to Computing, and vice versa" of us respectively our bridge between CL, CwW, and Computing,
• paradigms "You think as [or like] you speak, and vice versa" and "You think as [or like] you hear" of us,
• our original and unique Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• and so on,

belong to these expressions of ideas of C.S. and have been discussed on this website of OntomaX since many years (see for example the Clarification Caliber Special #1a of the 20th of May 2011, which is about our universal model coined as Calibre or Caliber, and Clarification Caliber Special #1b of the 21st of May 2001). But we always explained that ML, CI, ANN, etc. are not enough for our Trusted Artificial Intelligence (TAI) or Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI).
Also keep in mind that a so-called LLN and other such models are not reasoning at all, which is claimed by those fraudsters as well, including the founders, managers, and researchers of OpenAI, but merely reproducing the reasoning included in the compressed structure respectively trained ANN (subsymbolic).
But ontologies and other semantic models of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (symbolic) were also used for implementing and training such models.
Moreover, the company also claimed that its plagiarism can programm in every programming language, which means they have also stolen the OntoBot feature of the multiparadigmatic programming paradigm and therefore our Ontologic Programming (OP) paradigm, and both programming paradigms include the Logic Programming (LP) paradigm.
Eventually, AI (symbolic) is included or has been compressed somehow as well.
In fact, including or integrating the field of AI based on the field of logics proves even more that it is merely a plagiarism of our original and unique works of art, but also of our corporation.
These properties and functionalities, and their combinations already provide clear, sufficient, significant, profound, undeniable, and court-proof evidences that our original and unique, iconic works of art titled

and created by C.S. have been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint without creating a new original and unique expression and avoiding a causal link, and hence shows the required causal link with our original and unique expressions of ideas, which have been presented with our Evoos and our OS. The evidences also show that the companies OpenAI and Microsoft, and also other entities are aware about the legal situation, but are still infringing the rights and stealing the properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Such fraudulent companies do not create and invent, but are merely copying, stealing, and marketing creations and inventions of others, and even do so in a way, which harms freedom of choice, innovation, and competition for the benefit of the public.

We already made crystal clear several months ago that this is part of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), when Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and OpenAI began to steal also our intelligent multimodal technology of our Evoos and our OntoBot alone and in collaboration. One reason is the legal regulation of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) as of the end of December 2022, which dictates if something of our OS is common to all members of our SOPR, then it goes back to our SOPR and becomes a part of the related mandatory common backbone, core network, or fabric, and also subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our SOPR.
Another regulation of the ToS as of the beginning of January 2023 demands to publicate only Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which are based on the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and therefore excludes such foundational models and basic generative SoftBionic (SB) technologies anyway. In fact, we have here the same situation like with online maps or digital maps, and related OAOS.

Eventually, that is only a usual scam of a usual start-up supported by usual fraudulent and even serious criminal entities.
Do not invest in OpenAI and Co., because we will act even faster against them than we did against those illegal crypto tulips.

In this relation, we also would like to note the other documented copyright infringements and conspiracies of OpenAI with companies, like for example Microsoft, Salesforce, and others, and also their henchmen.

If that company OpenAI does not comply with the

then trust the exponential ... or at least the triple damage compensation (300%) and demand for all earnings, or even blacklisting until it gives up its fraudulent and even serious criminal actions.
Independently of this, the whole case of OpenAI and its members, supporters, collaborators, and other related entities will go to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Just see the clarifications and notes

once again.

17.March.2023

07:45, 09:45, 11:11, and 15:48 UTC+1
Microsoft still in LaLaLand

Over more than 4 decades, the company Microsoft has shown to be not trustworthy again and again, and to such an extent that a ground for any collaboration seems not to be given at all.
Therefore, Microsoft Azure and other parts of our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), will be given back to our corporation as part of the damage compensation, restitution, and restoration being due or our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will take extremely decisive measures to enforce the complete restitution and restoration of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in one way or another.
Its software suite Office respectively Microsoft 365 has to be implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and publicized on our OAOS platform exclusively in return of 30% of the generated revenue.
There is also no proprietary Application Programming Interface (API) to the parts of our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), allowed. How we handle APIs to individual OSC and OAOS will be a matter of how an entity is trying to exploit them as a legal loophole.

Note that we already have integrated all by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) since the end of October 2006, including a

See the webpages

See also the

See also for example the

In this relation, we already have asked the question why on planet Earth should we give up our rights and donate our properties to such a fraudulent and even serious criminal company, which shows no respect, no goodwill, no commitment, no constructive attitude at all, for no reason and for free.
Also note, that the foundations of such software are common to all members of our SOPR and therefore the related subsystem and platform belong to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

In fact, their founders and shareholders are not willing to give in and comply with

while we are beginning to exploit the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation maximally.
The legal situation in relation to the

and we do have the impression that the companies affected and even the first truly competent journalists of the uncontrolled press do completely understand this situation finally.
Therefore, the only questions left are if the courts confirm the ToS and the LM of our SOPR, which should be a formal task, and who of the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will be allowed to sign the license contract or close the booth.

The scandals of the Disk operating system (Dos) and Netscape web browser will not repeat, and Microsoft will not expand its already illegal monopoly and not increase the wall of its walled garden, specifically not by infringing the rights and properties, damaging the goals, and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation. There is only one walled garden which belongs to our SOPR.
This is rule-based law and order, this is democracy, this is competition in contrast to the refusal to apply copyright law and competition law, and to eventually break up such illegal monopolies by federal authorities.

Therefore, it is not sure at all if our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System, including our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), Ontoscope Components (OsC), to the company Microsoft at least in the European Union (EU) and the P.R.China, as well as other countries.

A lot of Microsoft is not allowed:

See also the notes Baidu still in LaLaLand and Alphabet (Google) still in LaLaLand of today below.

07:46, 12:05, and 15:48 UTC+1
Baidu still in LaLaLand

Over more than 1 decade, the company Baidu has shown to be not trustworthy again and again, and to such an extent that a ground for any collaboration seems not to be given at all.
Therefore, Baidu Cloud and other parts of our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), will be given back to our corporation as part of the damage compensation, restitution, and restoration being due or our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will take extremely decisive measures to enforce the complete restitution and restoration of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in one way or another.
Its software has to be implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and publicized on our OAOS platform exclusively in return of 30% of the generated revenue.
There is also no proprietary Application Programming Interface (API) to the parts of our Ontologic System (OS) allowed. How we handle APIs to individual OSC and OAOS will be a matter how an entity is trying to exploit them as a legal loophole.

Note that we already have integrated all by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) since the end of October 2006, including a

See the webpages

See also for example the

In this relation, we already have asked the question why on planet Earth should we give up our rights and donate our properties to such a fraudulent and even serious criminal company, which shows no respect, no goodwill, no commitment, no constructive attitude at all, for no reason and for free.
Also note, that the foundations of such software are common to all members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and therefore the related subsystem and platform belong to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

In fact, their founders and shareholders are not willing to give in and comply with

while we are beginning to exploit the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation maximally.
The legal situation in relation to the

and we do have the impression that the companies affected and even the first truly competent journalists of the uncontrolled press do completely understand this situation finally.
Therefore, the only questions left are if the courts confirm the ToS and the LM of our SOPR, which should be a formal task, and who of the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will be allowed to sign the license contract or close the booth.

The scandals of the illegal Android operating system, and the proprietary World Wide Web (WWW) will not repeat, and Baidu will not expand its already illegal monopoly and not increase the wall of its walled garden, specifically not by infringing the rights and properties, damaging the goals, and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation. There is only one walled garden which belongs to our SOPR.

Therefore, it is not sure at all if our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System, including our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), Ontoscope Components (OsC), and so on, to the company Baidu at least in the U.S.America and the European Union (EU), as well as other countries.

See also the notes Microsoft still in LaLaLand and Alphabet (Google) still in LaLaLand of today above and below.

11:34, 12:05, and 15:48 UTC+1
Alphabet (Google) still in LaLaLand

Over more than 3 decades, the company Alphabet (Google) has shown to be not trustworthy again and again, and to such an extent that a ground for any collaboration seems not to be given at all.
Therefore, Google Cloud and other parts of our Ontologic System (OS), including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), will be given back to our corporation as part of the damage compensation, restitution, and restoration being due or our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will take extremely decisive measures to enforce the complete restitution and restoration of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in one way or another.
Its software has to be implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and publicized on our OAOS platform exclusively in return of 30% of the generated revenue.
There is also no proprietary Application Programming Interface (API) to the parts of our Ontologic System (OS) allowed. How we handle APIs to individual OSC and OAOS will be a matter how an entity is trying to exploit them as a legal loophole.

Note that we already have integrated all by our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) since the end of October 2006, including a

See the webpages

See also for example the

In this relation, we already have asked the question why on planet Earth should we give up our rights and donate our properties to such a fraudulent and even serious criminal company, which shows no respect, no goodwill, no commitment, no constructive attitude at all, for no reason and for free.
Also note, that the foundations of such software are common to all members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and therefore the related subsystem and platform belong to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR.

In fact, their founders and shareholders are not willing to give in and comply with

while we are beginning to exploit the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation maximally.
The legal situation in relation to the

and we do have the impression that the companies affected and even the first truly competent journalists of the uncontrolled press do completely understand this situation finally.
Therefore, the only questions left are if the courts confirm the ToS and the LM of our SOPR, which should be a formal task, and who of the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will be allowed to sign the license contract or close the booth.

The scandals of the illegal Android operating system and the illegal Android Smartphone, and the proprietary World Wide Web (WWW) will not repeat, and Alphabet (Google) will not expand its already illegal monopoly and not increase the wall of its walled garden, specifically not by infringing the rights and properties, damaging the goals, and even threatening the integrities of C.S. and our corporation. There is only one walled garden which belongs to our SOPR.
This is rule-based law and order, this is democracy, this is competition in contrast to the refusal to apply copyright law and competition law, and to eventually break up such illegal monopolies by federal authorities.

Therefore, it is not sure at all if our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System, including our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), Ontoscope Components (OsC), to the company Alphabet (Google) at least in the European Union (EU) and the P.R.China, as well as other countries.

See also the notes Microsoft still in LaLaLand and Baidu still in LaLaLand of today above.

18.March.2023

06:52 UTC+1
OAOS authors have to use OntoBlender, OntoCAx, etc.

Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS)
Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx)

Authors of contents for our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), specifically Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services, have to use

and our

• OntoBlender and other OntoCAx (e.g. OntoCAD),
• OntoLedger,
• OntoEarth or OntoGlobe,
• Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind),
• etc.,

for writing and modelling their OAOS. The rest does our OntoBot with our generative and creative SB technologies, models, including the one and only legal Large Language Model (LLM), automatic multiparadigmatic programming based on our Ontologic Programming (OP), including Literate Programming, and so on.
No programming, no Application Programming Interface (API), no other Computer-Aided technologies (CAx) tool, no other agent, assistant, copilot, etc., no other subsystem and platform, and no other walled garden than the only legal ones of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) are required.
See the quote of a report in the note OpenAI still in LaLaLand of the 17th of March 2023 to see how easy it works with our original and unique, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..

All proprietary CAx tools, specifically Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools, and proprietary APIs are prohibited, like for example Alphabet (Google) Generative AI App Builder and MakerSuite, and PaLM API, Microsoft Visual Studio, and so on.

07:13, 09:24, and 22:18 UTC+1
They are still trying to steal the AWs and IPs of C.S.

Artwork (AW)
Intellectual Property (IP)

That will have serious consequences now.

We are working out the first document, which our legal team, judges, prosecutors, companies, and every other entity concerned will get by mail or can get from one of our website in around 5 weeks.
At this point, we will not discuss the around 27 methods of fraud and serious crime already worked out. But we give a brief outline:
"For this purpose, the bad actors designed an almost unbelievable and incomprehensible, perfidious and perverse fraud system with an extensive assortment of fraud methods and have since been realizing a single illusion through their application in order to

on the one hand and to

on the other hand.

This pretense of that alternative reality resembles a simulacrum in a hyperreality, in which there is only the simulation of reality and the original, but I and my enterprise are (supposed to be) rendered completely meaningless by the confusion, diffusion, dilution, and erosion, and ultimately referencelessness, deliberately brought about in this fraudulent way.
This illusion is kept up by the actors until today, although more and more persons gain the knowledge about the real facts.

The bad actors have always been able to create their own works and make their own achievements. But instead they have always followed my activities and have no respect for the

of me and my corporation.

In particular, the bad actors have merely

the original and unique, revolutionary, and legally protected creations, works, multimedia designs, architectures, and sculptures, as well as other achievements and accomplishments, and the innovative and high-quality technologies, products, and services of me and my corporation, and then

and thereby ultimately

All these cases of unlawful acts can be proven by presenting

can be proven by me in a court-proof way."

After this prolog, every judge will be interested to get more informations about this case or even will have an open mouth.

At first, they all alone and together in orchestrations, collaborations, and conspiracies, and at the same time copied, implemented, and presented those single parts and integrations of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), which are difficult to be presented as evidences to

to create, fake, and stage said illusion or alternative reality.

At this point, members of our legal team directly suggested to sue against the infringement of the moral rights of C.S..

Then they copied and presented even more aggressively single parts and integrations of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), like for example the

and integrated them in the parts of their walled gardens already stolen before.
One of the recent examples is the integration of what is wrongly called Cloud computing and generative AI with online search engine, email, news, and chat clients, and also office software, and the provision of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and proprietary Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) therefore.
The (multimodal) generative SB models are also interesting, because they found out and understood how important our original and unique work of art titled ... and also called Evoos is as prior art besides already being the foundation of what is wrongly called Grid Computing (GC), Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and Metaverse, and decided to attack and neutralize our Evoos head on.

At this point, the magnitude, the materiality, and the significance of said AWs and IPs are obvious, and therefore the moral rights of C.S. and their infringement are already crystal clear and proven. The rest is a formal act at the courts.
Furthermore, due to said magnitude, said materiality, and said significance one has to conclude that more than only the moral rights are granted, which means copyrights and competition rights, which must have been infringed as well.
And after getting more evidences the whole case will also become more and more crystal clear. The rest is a formal act at the courts, too.

But they made mistakes on their own and had to make mistakes due to our actions, provocations, and traps laid out before. In this relation, we already mentioned the very easy to understand the comparison of the timeline and pathways of the real causalities and the timeline and pathways of the artificial causalities, specifically when shown for example as a graphical event process chain, which results for example in contradictions, which can only be resolved by the conclusion that our AWs are the originals, even if some parts are foggy and murky at first sight, which again results in the breakdown of more and often large parts of the timeline and pathways of the artificial causalities until the complete illusion has been dissolved in nothing, the fake has been busted, and the bad actors have been convicted.

One can also see by that that our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not be able to set up a truly working license contract with those entities, which would guarantee

pro bono publico==for the public good and therefore we demanded the break-up of their illegal monopolies at first, which has been refused, and then we simply decided at the beginning of the year 2023 to handle our legal monopoly like they are allowed to handle their illegal monopolies and walled gardens, stop the elaboration of any legal matters, and refuse to modify and open our OS in favour of our OAOS platform.

Eventually, the whole action of them is done to blackmail C.S. and our corporation to open and give up the control over our AWs and IPs, and even force us out of our corporation and our market. We agree to disagree.

At this holistic view, the question is only 70:30 and booth still open or 100:0 and booth now closed, and so on.

19.March.2023

00:19 UTC+1
Success story continues and no end in sight

We found more plagiarisms of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), including the related parts of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), like for example the so-called Large Language Models (LLMs) or Foundational Language Models (FLMs), and foundational Artificial Neural Network Models (ANNMs) used with our generative and creative SoftBionic (SB) and Ontologic Programming (OP) paradigms and our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
But what makes those plagiarisms especially interesting are their

which are based on what we called "You think " and the reduction of other modalities to Computational Linguistics (CL), and Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU).

But keep in mind that we have gone further beyond CL respectively NLP and NLU in the period spanning the years 1999 to 2005.

21.March.2023

14:19, 14:59, 17:32, 19:01, and 22:28 UTC+1
Microsoft and Co. failed with their strategy

Everything stolen have to be given back, because crime will not be rewarded by the society.
All the attempts to make the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. proprietary are deadborn childs, because

• neutrality, fairness, interoperability, etc., as well as
• freedom of choice, innovation, and competition

pro bono publico==for the public good.
The latest action is to integrate the stolen parts of our Evoos, and also our OntoBot and OntoSearch with social networking platforms, while Meta (Facebook) tried again to steal our Social and Societal System (SoSoS or S³). This also seems to be another evidence for this abuse of market power, criminal copyright infringement, blackmailing, wire fraud, securities fraud, commercial fraud, corruption, conspiracy, plot,

We already have investigated another detail of at least one of their methods of their giant fraud, which also shows that they are trying to find a legally secure base on the basis of our comments, explanations, and clarifications in relation to for example our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and generative SoftBionics (SB).

But we have already explained that such a legally secure base does not exist at all, specifically in combination or through integration with the fields of

There is no legal loophole, but only evidences and causal links to the original and unique, personal, and copyright expressions of ideas created by C.S..

The common backbone, core network, or fabric, and also subsystems and platforms, specifically the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) platform (70% + 30%) and the Marketplace for Everything (raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, models (e.g. language models, confirmed models, predicted structures, etc.), and algorithms), of the exclusive infrastructures and environments of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies are free of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and their mandatory utilization will be enforced at the courts.

Please note once again that the statute of limitations in relation to the copyright law is not so straight, as one might think. In addition, it merely rules

• day of first knowing, which means getting the holistic view (see once again the first list point) and
• day when an infringement stopped (has not stopped until today in our case, but even worsened).

So we are still fine.

But in our case we have developed a way that everything can be restored and restituted, and either the triple damage compensations will be paid or no allowance and license will be granted respectively no utilization and publication of OAOS will be allowed. In this way we have also shown that no irreparable damage and no irreversible situation exists at all.
We also have discussed other measures to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation until justice prevailed for 100%.
It is that easy.

Nevertheless, a complete rejection of any performance and reproduction is always possible.

Therefore, allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., including our Evolutionary operating system or better said Cybernetic System, becomes more and more unlikely and even impossible after the latest criminal actions of Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Meta (Facebook), and Co..
Our impression is that they have gone all-in on all seems to be true, which supports our legal accusations, while we have only begun to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Please keep also in mind that we will take the ruling of a judge and put it into plain action, as we always said before.

More and more governments of the largest economies are already stepping back and waiting for the finish of the procedures.

Governments should stop conspiring with them. We provide the much better option and this even legally in contrast to all the others.
Hopefully, none of them is speculating to solve the issue by starting a trade war or other utter nonsense.

By the way:

22.March.2023

01:06 and 09:06 UTC+1
We always said our OS is revolutionary and magic

We quote a report, which is about our multimodal, multilingual, multidimensional, multiparadigmatic, multimedia Ontologic System (OS), written by another criminal fake news journalist of the New York Trolls (NYT), and publicized today: "[...]
You need to understand," Craig ["Mundie, the former chief of research and strategy officer for Microsoft"] warned me before he started his demo, "this is going to change everything about how we do everything. I think that it represents mankind's greatest invention to date. It is qualitatively different - and it will be transformational."
[...]
We know the key Promethean eras of the last 600 years: the invention of the printing press, the scientific revolution, the agricultural revolution combined with the industrial revolution, the nuclear power revolution, personal computing and the internet and ... now this moment.
Only this Promethean moment is not driven by a single invention, like a printing press or a steam engine, but rather by a technology super-cycle. It is our ability to sense, digitize, process, learn, share and act, all increasingly with the help of A.I. That loop is being put into everything - from your car to your fridge to your smartphone to fighter jets - and it's driving more and more processes every day.
It's why I call our Promethean era "The Age of Acceleration, Amplification and Democratization." Never have more humans had access to more cheap tools that amplify their power at a steadily accelerating rate - while being diffused into the personal and working lives of more and more people all at once. And it's happening faster than most anyone anticipated.
The potential to use these tools to solve seemingly impossible problems - from human biology to fusion energy to climate change - is awe-inspiring. [...] proteins are "the microscopic mechanisms that drive the behavior of the human body and all other living things."
What each protein can do, though, largely depends on its unique three-dimensional structure. [...]
[...] For a human that would be worthy of a Nobel Prize. Maybe two.
[...]
[The proven plagiarism of an essential part of our Evoos and our OntoBot] ChatGPT is another such meta technology.
[...]
A.I., by contrast, is being pioneered by private companies for profit. The question we have to ask, Craig argued, is how do we govern a country, and a world, where these A.I. technologies "can be weapons or tools in every domain," while they are controlled by private companies and are accelerating in power every day? And do it in a way that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We are going to need to develop what I call "complex adaptive coalitions" - where business, government, social entrepreneurs, educators, competing superpowers and moral philosophers all come together to define how we get the best and cushion the worst of A.I. No one player in this coalition can fix the problem alone. It requires a very different governing model from traditional left-right politics. And we will have to transition to it amid the worst great-power tensions since the end of the Cold War and culture wars breaking out inside virtually every democracy.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we would like to note that there is a lot of marketing blah blah blah and hype, and also a lot of confusion and manipulation by the lying press.
In fact, it is not so easy to solve problems, specifically by crawling through a giant heap of AI crap, predicted probability and potential, and hallucination.

Furthermore, that lying journalist also does know very well, like his criminal fake news colleagues, that C.S. created the foundation of this revolution and magic, including the integration of the

Also note that we have here also something three-dimensional and something related to the fields of biology and systems biology listed in the webpage Terms of the 21st Century, related to The Proposal, the OntoBot (see Maude and Pathway Logic), section Human Simulation/Holomer of the webpage Links to Software, and many other works of C.S. (see the Innovation-Pipeline of Ontonics), and that they use the term meta when they mean onto. It is like with our Ontoverse (Ov), also wrongly called metaverse by the same and other lying journalists.

Interestingly, the example of protein folding and the resulting predicted structures for more than 200 million proteins also show once again that Evolutionary Computing (EC) and some kind of Generate 'n' Test (GnT) (see our Evoos and our OntoBot once again) and Total Quality Management (TQM) (see the basic properties of our Ontologic System (OS)) are utilized, or being more precise a partially generated output sequence of the decoder part of a transformer Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) is improved in an iterative and incremental developement process or generative process by using it as the input of the decoder part until the output meets a certain quantity or quality or both.
The webpage with this (web) application or web service of the company Alphabet (Google) and its plagiarism of our OntoBot generates potential solutions and tests them against semantic structures (e.g. ontologies), grammatics, and the websites, which are included in the Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG) and are used for training its Artificial Neural Network (ANN), specifically its generative SoftBionic (SB) (language) model, specifically its Large Language Model (LLM). SuperBingo!!!
This also suggests that the raw or untrained Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), which is called transformer, was developed by using EC, specifically Genetic Algorithm (GA) or even Genetic Programming (GP).

And for sure, the age of acceleration was also described by Vernor Vinge as a singularity and one of the many plagiarists of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Marvin Minsky, as a dancing top or humming top, and in a way, which also suggest an iterartive, incremental development process and a related acceleration (see also the webpage Documents of the website of OntoLinux).

And C.S. and only C.S. holds the copyright and has the control over this property by national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters, and therefore has the exclusive right to make the rules in relation to the performance and reproduction of this creation, which constitute the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and definitely not any religious fanatic, political extremist, or member of a serious criminal mafia.
Our SOPR is also the already existing and only legal society for those "complex adaptive coalitions".

We also would like to recall that the issue and impossibility to expropriate a living artist from an artwork, specifically C.S. from our Evoos and our OS, which are even created as cybernetic reflection (e.g. cybernetic self-image or self-portrait), augmentation, and extension of C.S., has been discussed multiple times as well on this website of OntomaX and would require a related amount of compensation, which obviously is somewhere in the upper three-digit trillion U.S. Dollar or Euro region if not considerably more in the lower quadrillion U.S. Dollar or Euro region, in case such an illegal expropriation would be possible at all. And the payment of at least 10% is due instantly after introducing the mandatory law, which no country can afford. Therefore, our demand for 70% OAOS cut and our offer for 30% author royalty, and all of our demands regarding

• SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI or ComI) (e.g. Artifical Neural Network (ANN) and Evolutionary Computing (EC)), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or Cognitive System (CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), etc.),
• language models, and
• OAOS, as a Service (aaS) (business) capability and (cloud) operational models (aaSx), etc. (no ChatGPT, Bard, etc.),
• Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) subsystems and platforms (no Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Services, etc.),
• integration of communication technologies, inclusive the Internet, 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems of the Next Generation (5G NG) and the 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G), and following foundations and standards of us, satellite networks, etc. with network slicing, virtualized and programmable Radio Access Network (RAN), etc.,

In fact, everything, which we do and demand, is legal and Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC), and we also say all the time that the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are worth everything. Even better, our regulations in the Terms of Use (ToS) are very powerful, specifically the regulation that demands that a part of our OS, which is common to all members of our SOPR, belongs to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and already show that they guarantee

pro bono publico==for the public good and force other companies to invent, develop, and provide own technologies, goods, and services instead of to copy, steal, and market the rights and properties of other entities.

Oh, yes, do not forget to mention: We also demanded that

And due to the reason that governments and commissions do not want to fulfill this demand, the

By the way:

10:32 UTC+1
Website update

We corrected the date of publication of The Proposal, which was at the meeting with Professor Doctor Wolfgang Banzhaf in his faculty at the University of Dortmund, F.R.Germany, on Friday the 10th of December 1999.
Please note once again, that the initial discussion about our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) was around January or February to March 1999 and the version of The Proposal dated 28th of April 2000 and publicized on the website of OntoLinux is only an updated version. We are still working on the publication of the first version dated 10th of December 1999, as soon as we can get one of the at least 2 existing originals stored in our archives (1 of the 2 printed versions and 1 digital version) out of our safes. The second printed version was given to W. Banzhaf at that day and circulated through the faculty in the following months and we guess that this work of art was also discussed with his scientific colleagues since early 1999.

We are not Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Co.. Therefore:
It is not a trick. It is Ontologics.

16:07 and 18:44 UTC+1
There can only be one: Our original OntoBot

No OpenAI ChatGPT, no LeftWingGPT, no RightWingGPT, no Alphabet (Google) Bard, no LeftWingBard, no RightWingBard, no liberal softbot, no woke softbot, no conservative softbot, no Ponzi softbot, no confidence bot, no religious bot, no this or that plagiarism of our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) is allowed in the

in whole or in part (e.g. integration of a raw or untrained Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), like the so-called transformer, with another part of our OS so that a causal link is not avoided), because any foundational item, which is common to all members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), belongs to the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

Due to various reason, we have decided to give no allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of most parts of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S..
Instead, our SOPR and our other Societies provide exclusive infrastructures with subsystems and platforms to all entities, that can use them to write, model, compose, draw, paint, sculpture, record, etc. Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and publicate their resulting OAOS on said OAOS platform exclusively.
Entities concerned can use their crap in their private toilets, but not in public, and have to get this and the simple regulations of the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR into their potentially empty brains.
And we are beginning to enforce this at the courts worldwide.

By the way:

25.March.2023

Comment of the Day

Q: "What is the colour of the algorithm?"
A: "The colour of the algorithm is green."
Q: "Green?"
A: "Supergreen!"

28.March.2023

11:14 and 14:11 UTC+2
Apple still in LaLaLand #1

For sure, the company Apple did not provocate us as much as other companies did.
But it is working behind the curtain as well and also showed no convincing commitment, while we are making no experiments anymore since some years and have begun to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. As a consequence of our guarantee of

pro bono publico==for the public good, the company Apple has to use our exclusive and mandatory

if they should be allowed, licensed, and executed on the variants of our original and unique Ontoscope (Os) called iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch, or said in other words the Apple Appstore has already been prohibited with the message Other app stores than our MfE prohibited of the 5th of January 2023 and we will not make any exceptions in our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoverse (Ov).
In this relation, we already made crystal clear several years ago that the IXI - iPod and MPEG 2 Layer 3 (MP3) scandal will not repeat. For sure, we do know about that criminal copyright infringement, commercial fraud, corruption, conspiracy, plot, and so on conducted together with the reseach institute of the F.R.German clique based on (very) nasty espionage of private communications, which is also the reason why we do know the true history of the iPod and also the Ontoscopes iPhone and iPad.
And the Chief Executive Office (CEO) of Apple, Tim Cook, does already know very well how the next future will look like. :)

Besides this, we do not expect that Apple will be allowed to produce and sell its Os variants in the P.R.China much longer. In fact, we are wondering why the U.S.American administration has not told Apple to stop it due to its geopolitics, though Apple is already restructuring its supply and process chains in Asia.

They all have been annoying, bothering, and pestering us long enough now.

14:27 UTC+2
Alibaba becomes 6 business groups or only 3

What holds for other companies, that holds for the company Alibaba as well. Therefore, we are not sure if it will keep all of its 6 new business groups because of the new Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
Specifically the business group

seems to be a part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including common backbone, core network, or fabric, and subsystems and platforms, while the business groups

might also have prohibited overlaps with the infrastructures of our SOPR and will face extreme and most potentially unsustainable technical, legal, and economical pressure, if Alibaba would refuse to comply with the

29.March.2023

10:08 UTC+2
Press cannot be fact checkers

News themselves are facts, if they were truly publicized at a specific data, but news contents are not facts, but subjective or biased, wrong, and even manipulated opinions, which reflect the opinion and goal of an owner or an editor. news contents are unsuitable for any Knowledge Base (KB) and any true scientific research, exactly like the results of an online search engine, the contents of an online encyclopedia, and the fields of Swarm Intelligence (SI) and generative SoftBionics (SB), and

Obviously and logically, due to the principle of checks and balances in any rule-based law and order environment, like for example a democracy, the press can only have one role in a society, which means either the role of being a

but not both.

To guarantee

pro bono publico==for the public good the media has to use our exclusive and mandatory

if they should be allowed, licensed, and operated in our Ov.

We are not so crazy and others should also be not so stupid anymore, and put the fox in charge of the henhouse. Is not it? :D :þ ©™

13:28 and 21:07 UTC+2
Architecture, system, app, service, model, API

application (app)
Application Programming Interface (API)

All companies concerned have taken our

as sources of inspirations and blueprints, and also have copied and modified our Evoos and our OS, specifically our EosA and OSA, and also EhwA and OsA, in whole or in part to get control over our original and unique works of art and make them proprietary.

In addition, all companies concerned have mimicked and deceived C.S. and our corporation.

Therefore, we have the impression, opinion, and insight that there is not much else to debate in relation to the rights and properties (e.g. copyright, raw signals and data, online advertisement estate, etc.) of C.S. and our corporation than some few details of the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions of our in relation to the triple damages, the illegally generated earnings, the scope of allowance and license for the performance and reproduction, the royalties, the stop of infringements, the restorations, the restitutions, the provisions of our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), the productions of our goods, etc., if at all and if required at the courts.

Please keep in mind that we still have more possibilities to let escalate the situation further.

Of course, we noted that a group of entities tried to show a certain level of commitment and compliance to fulfill the demands and maintain the regulations of the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) as of the end of December 2022.
But our arguments, which we needed to get them there, and their half-backed activities to comply with the

while still trying to

provides no ground and reason to change our latest decisions in relation to the

We also have no time, no mood, and no interest to draft a legal framework and also carry out a set of legal actions at the same time.

All companies concerned should begin with returning all OAOS subsystems and platforms, which are wrongly called Grid Computing systems and platforms, and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) systems and platforms, so that we get them back under the management, which means planning, control, and monitoring, as well as partial execution, and realization or implementation by our SOPR.

21:00, 22:02, and 23:02 UTC+2
We have our OS and go flat out HB and SB

Ontologic System (OS)
HardBionics (HB)
SoftBionics (SB) (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI or ComI) (e.g. Artifical Neural Network (ANN) and Evolutionary Computing (EC)), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or Cognitive System (CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), etc.)

We have our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) component and therefore have no reason at all to not go flat out with our HB and SB.

We also hold the rights for the foundations of our generative and creative Bionics of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) in contrast to those, who have stolen it or are trying to infringe the rights and control the properties, and also damage the goals and even threaten the integrities of C.S. and our corporation.

C.S. as the original creator of our Evoos does understand, predict, and reliably control such ever more powerful digital minds, because we created the OS as successor of our Evoos to solve the problems that the totally incompetent entities now have with the parts of our OntoBot stolen by them.

In addition, our SOPR already introduced regulations of its Terms of Service (ToS), including the crystal clear rule that

• 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,

are parts of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR, and we will not debate that issue further.

Therefore, we will

that infringes said rights and properties, and even resembles an expropriation, damages said goals and even threatens said integrities, and also violates laws, arts, and freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

In fact, what we see here is that we still have solutions, which all the others have not, including entities of the companies Microsoft and OpenAI, who were later removed from the list of a Non-Profit Organization (NPO) (Why?), and only want to steal and now are trying to steal as well like they already did with our generative and creative Bionics and other parts of our Evoos and our OntoBot, and also other parts of our OS.
They are merely playing on time, talking blah blah blah, stirring up fears, and trying to repeat the OpenAI scam once again with another Non-Profit Organization (NPO), and also crying for their mothers and politicians, because they are loosing and are beginning to panic, which only shows what we described as stupidity, laziness, and power obsession respectively anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant.
If one cannot stay the heat, then one should not make fire or even play with fire.
They should go away as long as they can before we will put them into jail.

Hasta la vista, baby. :D :þ ©™

22:42 UTC+2
SOPR revising ToS regarding sovereignty and security

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is revising its Terms of Service (ToS) regarding sovereignty and security.
We remembered that the

separates the management tasks, the execution tasks, and the realization or implementation tasks and in this way provides the possibilty to maintain the principle of checks and balances between these 3 areas of responsibility and task.

We noted that this possibility also allows the separation between the

Therefore, the solutions prefered and presented by lobbyists and lawmakers have been proven to be reaching too far and to be not needed at all.

The time is now to

We will no longer grant the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of the corresponding parts of our OS anyway (see also the notes .

For a smooth restitution of our properties and an accompanying transition of the control over our properties among other reasons we also introduced the Main Contract Model (MCM). This approach was also dropped and eventually replaced in accordance to the separation between the management by us, and the execution and the realization or implementation by us together with service providers on the basis of customary contracting as revised Main Contract Model (MCM).

30.March.2023

10:58 UTC+2
Legal actions against OpenAI and FoLI signatories

Future of Life Institute (FoLI)

The rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are not up for debate and are not politicized, specifically

We tasked our legal team to take legal actions against at least all (intersection) supporters, funders, and signatories of the lists of both Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs), OpenAI and Future of Life Institute, because they have infringed the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation methodically and therefore deliberately multiple times and refuse to stop with their fraudulent and even serious criminal activities, including misleading the public about the true origin of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as well as the achievements of our corporation, taking said AWs and IPs as sources of inspirations and blueprints, and conducting conspiracies with the goal to damage the reputations and the goals, to disrupt the exclusive exploitation of said AWs and IPs, and momenta, and even to threaten the integrities of C.S. and our corporation, obviously, doubtlessly, and definitely, and soon to be shown in a court-proof way.

They are so anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant that they even ignored the well known fact that a trick only works one time (see also the note We have our OS and go flat out HB and SB of the 29th of March 2023 (yesterday).
We already announced to crack down and root out that mafia in the Silicon Valley, on the Silicon Alley, and at other locations.
We also told lawmakers to not fall prey to those enemies of a rule-based law and order environment, a foundation of democracy, a freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, and so on.
Not this way ladies and gentlemen.

By the way:

19:05 UTC+2
Illegal crypto no substitute for banks

We quote a report about our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Ledger (OntoLedger or OL): ""[The illegal cryptocurrency] Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are built on a blockchain in a decentralized structure that is not controlled by just one entity, [that is our SOPR with the consent and on behalf of C.S.]" said [an incompetent person about our Ontologic Net (ON)]. "The argument for decentralization and the adoption of cryptocurrency has become more valid after the banks' collapse."
[...] "Their blockchains are decentralized, transparent and auditable. Banks are not and, in the last few days, have become less so," [another incompetent person] said."

Comment
We thought we would never hear such a bull$#!+ again. Obviously, a lot of morons have already forgotten what happened around 1 year ago and that the foundation of our Ontologic Net (ON) and our interpretation of the Web 3.0, including our Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and what is wrongly called Web 3, is a part of our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., which we do exploit exclusively, including the DLT and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on it (e.g. cryptocurrencies, including for example the illegal Bitcoin and Co.), specifically through our exclusive and mandatory Ontologic Finance System (OFinS) with its Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) as part of the exclusive infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Entities should not be fooled by the lying press and incompetent persons in the finance industry, but stay away from that illegal cryptocurrencies and other illegal digital and virtual assets, because they are not safe-haven investments, like gold and our legal virtual and digital currencies and assets of our OFinS and OntoBank, and our legal team will go after them, because they are our properties stolen by fraudulent and even serious criminal entities with the support of such entities of the investment and wealth management businesses, who only want the best of common people, which is their real money.

31.March.2023

15:56 UTC+2
SOPR confirmed ban of OntoBot clone in Italy

As part of the exclusive exploitation or our Evoos and OS, including our generative SoftBionics and OntoBot, our SOPR has confirmed the prohibbition of the illegal partial plagiarism ChatGPT in Italy.
But we have to look at the matter in more detail to confirm also its legality in respect to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

16:08 and 16:51 UTC+2
SOPR confirmed ToS with LM 2023 again

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has confirmed the Terms of Service (ToS) with its License Model (LM) as of beginning of January 2023, including

• facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers),
• technologies (e.g. models, environments, systems (e.g. backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and satellite constellations), platforms, frameworks, components, and functions, and also Service-Oriented technologies (SOx)),
• goods (e.g. contents, data, software (e.g. applications), hardware (e.g. processors), devices, robots, and vehicles), and
• services (e.g. as a Service (aaS) business models and capability models)

for our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR),

and so on.

The reasons are easy to understand:

In fact, after our

we are now talking about believe, trust, security, safety, validation and verification, standard, protocol, ontology, knowledge, state regulation, independent control instance besides the exclusive management (planning, controlling, and monitoring) through our SOPR, the joint management (execution) and realization or implementation through our SOPR together with other private entities and public entities, and so on, specifically in relation to HB and SB (Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI or ComI) (e.g. Artifical Neural Network (ANN) and Evolutionary Computing (EC)), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Computer Vision (CV), Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (SLAM), Soft Computing (SC), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Cognitive Computing (CogC) or Cognitive System (CogS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Cognitive-Affective Personality or Processing System (CAPS), Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC), etc.) in general and our Evoos, our OntoBot, and our generative Bionics in particular.
This all sums up and therefore we only demand our damage compensations, restorations, restitutions, and Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions.

70% + 30% ownership regulation
The 70% + 30% ownership regulation is only related to a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE), which

while the 70% of an ownership is related to the

If

then our SOPR will handle it like a pure SOE outside the one or more jurisdictions.

Examples
A wealth fund holds a stake in a company, which is under 50% of the voting shares. Therefore, only 70% of said stake have to be sold to our corporation.
The state F.R.Germany holds a stake of 32% of the company Deutsche Telekom. Therefore, 70% of voting shares of Volkswagen America, Volkswagen China, etc. have to be sold to our corporation.
The states R.France, F.R.Germany, and R.Italy hold a blocking mayority of more than 50% of the company Airbus. Therefore, 70% of voting shares of Airbus America, Airbus China, etc. have to be sold to our corporation.
The state F.R.Germany holds a blocking minority of 20% of the company Volkswagen. Therefore, 70% of voting shares of Volkswagen America, Volkswagen China, etc. have to be sold to our corporation.
All mandatory sales do exclude the rights and properties, reputations, and momenta, as well as follow-up opportunities, and so on of C.S. and our corporation.
All shareholders have the option to structure their SOEs to improve their goals.

Other regulations may apply in the jurisdiction of a state, such as the

Main Contract Model (MCM)
The revised Main Contract Model (MCM) has evolved into a transparent procurement process, as known through public tendering procedures and the customary award of contracts to eligible Service Providers (SPs), specifically Ontologic Application and Ontologic Service Providers (OAOSPs).