Of course, we will talk about this specific part of the overall fraud or even serious crime amounting to at least 70 to 80% of 6.2 trillion to 8.68 trillion U.S. Dollar.
See also the note SOPR concluded payment of damages not sufficient of the 2nd of July 2023.

Fruthermore, we have expanded our legal team with the addition of experts specialising in the restitution of looted works of art with a proven track record to improve our legal strategies and strengthen our legal battles.

In addition, we added the U.S.American Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to our list of federal authorities to maximize our clout and impact.

Who is dreaming here?

02.October.2023

20:10 UTC+2
Clarification

We found our transducer again. :D
See the sections

TripleSuperBingo!!!

Even better, our transducer comes from Computational Linguistics (CL), and Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), and we also have bigger alphabets (see section SuperDNA of the webpage Terms of the 21st Century), so that we have the whole CL and also other means of information transfer (e.g. light, sound, etc.), which leads to Natural Image Processing (NIP) and Natural Image Understanding (NIU), and Natural Multimodal Processing and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU).

Now, the question has to be raised, who is truly responsible for the breakthrough of mRNA in the field of Biotechnology: The

All developers, implementers, and providers of our Ontology-Oriented (OO 2) Computing (OO 2 C), coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model, transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), and technologies based on it and other parts of our Evoos and our OS do have a serious legal problem, because the evidences, which show a causal link to our Evoos and our OS, are so obvious, and we do control that modern AI, etc..

See also for example the publications (keywords transformation, transition system, and transducer):

By the way:

23:26 UTC+2
Personal image is basic right

We quote a first report, which is about a digital replication of an actor: "[A late actor's] daughter [...] says recreations of her late father made with artificial intelligence are "disturbing."


"I've already heard AI used to get his 'voice' to say whatever people want and while I find it personally disturbing, the ramifications go far beyond my own feelings. Living actors deserve a chance to create characters with their choices, to voice cartoons, to put their human effort and time into the pursuit of performance."
[...]"

We quote a second report, which is about a digital replication of an actor: "[...]
[The actor] himself had previously spoken about the possible consequences of using AI in the acting industry, telling [in an interview] in May that movie agents are discussing writing contracts to protect actors' likenesses as intellectual property.
[...]"

Comment
For sure, a person's image or likeness is not an intellectual property, like a 3D trademark, but a personal image is a basic right, which has certain limits, specifically if the person acts in a way, which is in the public interest.
Therefore, a personal agent can only protect a recording of a performance of a person, but not the person in Pure, Propper, Physical Reality (PR) or Virtual Reality (VR), or other realities.
In addition, one has certain rights, when it comes to confusion.
But we also note that any such legal action would infringe the basic rights of a look-alike.

Furthermore, we would not declare a person as any property, because slavery is not allowed, and we highly recommend to use other views and terms in relation to this matter.
We even find certain contracts of sportswomen, specifically players of ball games, disgusting.

But eventually, this does not change the copyright law. For example, impersonation and creation of new artwork is allowed und fair use, but within the legal limits.

03.October.2023

00:20 UTC+2
Nadella not telling whole truth

We quote a first report, which is about the lawsuit U.S.America vs. Alphabet (Google) and the testimony of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company Microsoft, Sundar Pichai: "[...]
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned on Monday of a "nightmare" scenario for the internet if Google's dominance in online search is allowed to continue, a situation, he said, that starts with searches on desktop and mobile but extends to the emerging battleground of artificial intelligence.
[...]
In addition to training its models on search queries, Google has also been moving to secure agreements with content publishers to ensure that it has exclusive access to their material for AI training purposes, according the Microsoft CEO. In Nadella's own meetings with publishers, he said that he now hears that Google "wants ... to write this check and we want you to match it." (Google didn't immediately respond to questions about those deals.)
[...]
In his fruitless negotiations with Apple, Nadella said he has tried to argue that Bing's current role is little more than as a useful tool for Apple to "bid up the price" of hosting Google as the default search provider - but that Bing provides an important counterweight to Google and that Apple should consider investing in the Microsoft alternative for competition's sake. Nadella has also proposed running Bing on Apple devices as a kind of "public utility," he said.
[...]"

We quote a second report, which is about the lawsuit U.S.America vs. Alphabet (Google) and the testimony of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company Microsoft, Sundar Pichai: "[...]
In 2016, the public mudslinging seemed to come to an end with Mr. Nadella and Google's chief executive, Sundar Pichai, who were both new to their roles, declaring a détente. The rivalry had become a distraction, they said, and they had different priorities.
[...]
While much of the trial has revolved around Google's past behavior, Mr. Nadella shifted some of the focus to the future and A.I. Microsoft has invested $13 billion in OpenAI, the maker of the ChatGPT chatbot, which can now use Bing as a search default. [...]
[...]
"When I am meeting with publishers now, they are saying, 'Google's going to write this check to us, and it's going to be exclusive and you have to match it,'" he said.
[...]
At the end of Mr. Nadella's appearance, a Justice Department lawyer asked why he thought Google paid Apple so much money to be the default search engine on Apple's web browser Safari.
[...]"

Comment
At first, we would like to thank all testifying persons for providing us even more legal ammunition.
We would also like to share our wondering how grotesque and even surreal it is to observe 2 companies competing rampantly for our properties, which both have stolen from us, and fighting fiercely for dominance in our Ontoverse (Ov).

Furthermore, we do see a

and as a matter of these simply facts we do have crystal clear infringements of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation.

Therefore, there will be no agreement, but a license contract for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our core advantages, also known as original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., if the company Alphabet (Google) is willing and able to pay damage compensations and comply to the

We would also like to recall that the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies are already somekind of a public utility.

We also have some first questions:

• offering them venture capital,
• purchasing their company shares, and
• including them in partner programs?

The whole mess would be over instantly.
The truth is that Microsoft is not better than Alphabet (Google), because it only wants to be dominant and is doing everything to achieve its goals.
Howsoever, they will soon get the oppportunity to give the answers to these questions and much more other questions at the courts.

By the way:

• providing neutrality, fairness, interoperability, transparency, integrity, security, safety, trust, etc., as well as
• guaranteeing freedom of choice, innovation, and competition, and
• ensuring legality, harmony, continuity, stability, and prosperity

pro bono publico==for the public good, which no other entity is able to do, and also has unrestricted access to raw signals and data generated with our OS in our OS respectively in our Ov.

05.October.2023

01:09 and 01:30 UTC+2
U.A.E. have to comply with ToS

United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)

Terms of Service (ToS)

The U.A.E. are acting in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as the OntoLand (OL), which so to say is our kingdom with our oil of the 21st century, our raw signals and data, informations, knowledge bases, belief bases, models, and algorithms wells and we do make the rules in our kingdom.
Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) of our Evoos and our OS in whole or in part is not allowed.
Use of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, as regulated by the ToS of our SOPR, is allowed.
Period.

Jais and Falcon blacklisted.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

• national and international laws, regulations, and acts, as well as agreements, conventions, and charters,
• rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and
• Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR.

They will not get around this anyway.

01:23 UTC+2
SOPR considering to blacklist customers of Jais and Falcon

19:43 UTC+2
SOPR considering more options of LM

License Model (LM)

In the note SOPR considering options of the 28th of September 2023, we listed 3 options of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) in relation to the creation, development, or implementation of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and mentioned core business processes.

More options are given by

01:40, 03:33, and 20:00 UTC+2
Shareholders in SV, on SA, et al loosing control

Silicon Valley (SV)
Silicon Alley (SA)
and at other locations (et al)

Now, it has become obvious and completely irrefutable and can be shown in a court-proof way that they have stolen the original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. over the last 24 years in case of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and 17 years in case of our Ontologic System (OS), which includes our Evoos, and built their business empires and proprietary economic systems on lies, which have been busted.

Furthermore, the legal trick based on the fair use of an Application Programming Interface (API) with its questionable landmark ruling will not work for a larger scope of a copyrighted work, specifically not for illegal monopolies by applying another monopoly legal trick.
In fact, it would be totally ridiculous if an illegal monopoly demands the (use of) exclusive rights and properties hold by a legal monopoly to grow its illegal monopoly.

Therefore, the focus is now on solutions and procedures to rectify the untenable situation and settle the legal issues with only some details being left for decision making, including

If shareholders refuse to sign, then we will close their booths and do 100% + 0% by Lanham and Sherman in Aspen skiing. :)
Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and batteries are always included.

20:01 UTC+2
Apple showed more commitment

Because the company Apple has shown more cooperation with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and commitment to the proposed Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) and Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR and has exercised significantly greater restraint than other companies, specifically other members of the U.S.American clique and members of the F.R.German clique, we will follow the initial procedure, but in a slightly adapted way.
Specifically, we cannot design our legal actions anymore in a way that avoids collateral damages and other negative side effects. But actual court proceedings show that sensible legal matters (e.g. business secrets) can be kept convidential at the courts.
Howsoever, we do not expect that the unknowing shareholders will be happy about the truth surfacing now in contrast to our problem solution.

22:15 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We already have a draft of a standard, bullet proof, and proven for decades warning letter and the final warning letters will be (sufficiently) detailed, reasoned, and extensively substantiated summaries of tens or even hundreds of documented evidences in relation to the violations of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. But they will not be documents with hundreds of pages, because we always make clear that we do expect some sort of cooperation and in-house investigation and determination of said violations for finding an out-of-court agreement, though the latter was already rejected by most if not all major violating entities. Therefore, juridical nitpicking or currant pooping is not considered as being constructive.

And as we already said, a potential lawsuit will not go through more than 2 legal authorities or instances, the initial filing and the rejected appeal, because no violation of a basic right of a defendant exists, specifically a decision of a court is not made arbitrarily, and the right of a defendant to make a statement of opposition does not exist at all, or a right to be heard is not violated at all.
The U.S.America and the European Union are no unions of banana republics, even if one has such an impression occaisonally.

See also the

22:38 UTC+2
SOPR has mandatory Logistic System (LS)

What holds for the worldwide financial system and our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) also holds for the worldwide logistic system and the related facilities of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
See the list point Logistic System (LS) of the (already revised) issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021 and also note that the LS is coupled with the other facilities, including our OFinS and so on.

Electronic World Trade Platforms (EWTPs), including for example the companies Amazon and Alibaba, but also other platforms of other market areas have to use them to establish compliance with the

06.October.2023

05:12 and 07:32 UTC+2
U.K. has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

Stop ignoring and infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and interfering in our interests immediately.
That regulation trick has already been busted and is illegal anyway, specifically as an act of illegal lobbyism respectively corruption. We also made crystal clear that we opened our essential facilities sufficiently enough, so that old core businesses can be continued, but our businesses cannot be interfered with.

Interoperability between Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) is provided by the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Platform (OAOSP) and the other subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, including what is wrongly called cloud infrastructure and all other things, which are common to everybody.

05:12, 07:32, 20:09, and 21:14 UTC+2
ICT and Co. still in LaLaLand

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

What we observe since some days is a shift of the strategy to steal the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., because that does not work anymore, to the stillborn and hence dead by arrival attempts to steal our markets and customers, mimick our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), and steal the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies on the basis of those earlier violations of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically by illegal activities such as

on the basis of the fields of

• Web Services (WS),
• data storage,
• raw computing power respectively provision of server, and
• {might be incorrect} rudimentary fragments of what is now called Hardware as a Service (HaaS) (e.g. virtual server) and Software as a Service (SaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (aaSx), and also
• {might be incorrect} rudimentary fragments of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx),

{section not correct} and their various

but without distribution of word sequences language model and coherent ontologic model, including ontology and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model, transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) model, and so on.

But we do have the fields of

and the foundations of

with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA).
We also do have

• software robot (software bot or softbot),
• chatbot,
• textbot,
• Cybernetics,
• Bionics, generative and creative Bionics, Intelligent Agent System (IAS),
• AC,
• RA,
• AS,
• RS,
• Multimodal User Interface (MUI),
• Conversational System (CS or ConS),
• Search System (SS) or Search Engine (SE),
• Web Services (WS),
• Internet,
• World Wide Web (WWW),
• Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Networked Embedded System (NES),
• Business Process Management (BPM),
• etc., etc., etc.,

with our Ontologic System (OS) and its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

Interoperability between Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), and coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model, transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), are provided by the Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services Platform (OAOSP), the Marketplace for Everything (MfE), and the other subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, including what is wrongly called cloud infrastructure and all other things, which are common to everybody.

Therefore we repeat once again that there is no legal loophole respectively no way to circumvent the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., because they are copying our EosA and OSA even if using older prior artworks, scientific findings, and unprotected systems is legal, and copying simply compositions like cooking recipes is already considered a copyright infringement.
All the truly interesting things are in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

We also have the impression that a lot of entities have still not realized that we will take back the

if required by court orders worldwide. In fact, it is a standard formal procedure.

Please note once again that our SOPR only considers

as core businesses, but not what followed after the

Furthermore, core businesses have to be implemented as OAOS and utilize the essential facilities of our SOPR.
And we already showed that not much legal room to move exists, if at all.

19:42 UTC+2
SOPR considering blacklisting of illegal cloud customers

07.October.2023

03:13 and 05:25 UTC+2
Digital Realty has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

Indeed, we have very thoroughly thought about providers of Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (IaaSx), specifically about their core businesses, which are eligible for special protection by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
Eventually, our SOPR concluded that it is the only legal entity, that commercializes (e.g. monetizes) the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

Therefore, it is up to the company Digital Realty and its subsidiaries (e.g. DuPont Fabros Technology, Ascenty, Interxion, etc.) and business units to find an acceptable solution for the obvious issue in relation to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

Luckily, we are very flexible within the limits of the

We suggest a takeover under FRANDAC terms and conditions or alternatively a joint venture under the golden power regulation of the ToS of our SOPR, because these are the ideal solutions to make everybody happy. :)
Anyway, Digital Realty has to

The same holds for the (other) members of associations of Internet eXchange (IX) Point (IXP) operators, such as for example the

Please note that our SOPR is always at the real and virtual borders and interfaces.

Every entity, that thinks we would give up the control in general and miss such opportunities in particular can only be declared as being totally plemplem==batty, potty, nuts, bonkers, etc. without increment.

As we always say: We never come with empty hands to a party. And we keep promises. :)

Are there any questions?

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

04:46 UTC+2
SOPR considering blacklisting EU ICT in U.S.America and P.R.C.

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

See also the note

04:52 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We are improving our legal strategy to ensure that we retain all options and the full spectrum of further actions.

06:30 UTC+2
Equinix has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

See the note Digital Realty has to comply with ToS of today above and substitute Digital Realty with Equinix.

03:08 UTC+2
Gaia-X still in LaLaLand

As we said, Gaia-X gets no license respectively is blacklisted, as is definitely the case for its not secret anymore member Palantir and all those consortiums, which we will definitely keep out of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

Interestingly, the founding members of the Gaia-X Association on the F.R.German side include:

The co-founders of the Gaia-X Association include:

The founding members on the French Republic side include:

We are not surprised, specifically by the F.R.German side and the members of the F.R.German CDU/CSU clique and their representatives in the European Commission (EC) and European Parliament (EP) of the European Union (EU) and elsewhere. But that does not change the compromise, which is the law.
Since the beginning in the year 2019 we made crystal clear that that nonsense is not negotiable with our SOPR, but comes under the complete controll of our SOPR as part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
Selfevidently, we will also not go into the details in relation to those other illegal nonsense called German Edge Cloud, International Data Spaces Association, CISPE, and so on.

We will also act against such activities in general, because they are considered as part of the conspiracies and plots against C.S. and our corporation and demand the transfer of all materials, which violate the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

Maybe we got something wrong, but as far as we do know they need the compliance with the

specifically to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
But we need nothing from them.

Specifically ridiculous becomes that nonsense due to the facts that the company Siemens collaborates with the company Nvidia and its illegal cloud platform and infrastructue, the company BMW collaborates with the company Amazon and its illegal cloud platform and infrastructue, the company SAP collaborates with the company Alphabet (Google) and its illegal cloud platform and infrastructue, and so on, already making that whole Gaia-X thing virtually obsolete.
Who do they still want to take for a ride? As we already said in the note SAP still in LaLaLand of the 27th of September 2023 "[a]n illegal collusion, conspiracy, and plot, including an abuse of market power, cannot be any more conspicuous."

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein to get an introduction into the matter.

At least, we got a lot of additional answers and legal ammunition.
Obviously, no deal, no compromise, and no agreement exists and therefore the new Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR are effective.

By the way:

21:43 UTC+2
Biden, Scholz, and Co. responsible for +0.6++°C

For sure, we are able to prove that the decisions of politicians of the governments of the U.S.America and the member states of the European Union (EU) are responsible for an increase in global warming by at least 0.6°C simply by blocking and betraying us and delaying the realizations of climate change measures by 10 to 15 years, if their delayed measures are successful at all, which is already the subject of debates.

08.October.2023

04:51 UTC+2
SOPR decided for 80% + 20%

As crystal clearly announced, with the next scandal.

We also would like to recall that we do not accept a blocking minority.

Fair enough. :)

11.October.2023

03:06 UTC+2
These 'R' Us
Website revision

*** Work in progress - some thoughts might be missing, better formulation, less redundancy and more links ***
Due to some few new but relevant informations, we reviewed once again the fields of

• Cloud 1.0,
• Cloud 2.0, and
• Cloud 3.0,

• Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA),
• Service-Oriented Programming (SOP) (e.g. Openwings and .NET),
• Service-OrientedComputing (SOC) (e.g. FIPER and SORCER), and
• microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA), Service-to-Service (S2S) computing and networking,

• Agent-Based System (ABS), specifically software agent, including software robot (software bot or softbot), and
• Soft Computing (SC).

In the course of this, we corrected and still have to correct some misleading or even wrong statements made on this website OntomaX.

1.1 Cloud 1.0
Apple Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) project in 1989 became the spin-off General Magic in 1990, which developed the Magic Communicating Applications Platform or simply Magic Cap (announced in 1993 and released in 1994). Magic Cap has no subfields or subsystems of the field of Bionics other than the simple mobile Agent-Based System (ABS) of its Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP) language Telescript (announced in 1993 and released in 1996), no subfields or subsystems of the field of Cybernetics, and no this and that.
See also the note Clarification Cloud 3.0 'R' Us as well of the 16th of June 2023 for more informations.

1.2 Cloud 2.0
At first, we quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Web Service (WS): "A web service (WS) is either:

In a web service, a web technology such as HTTP is used for transferring machine-readable file formats such as XML and JSON. [...]

[...]

Explanation
The term "Web service" describes a standardized way of integrating Web-based applications using the XML, SOAP, WSDL and UDDI open standards over an Internet Protocol backbone. [...]
[...]
Many organizations use multiple software systems for management.[citation needed] Different software systems often need to exchange data with each other, and a Web service is a method of communication that allows two software systems to exchange this data over the Internet. [...]"

We quote and translate an online encyclopedia about the subject Web Service (WS): "Web services are oriented towards service-oriented architecture (SOA) and therefore combine distributed and object-oriented programming standards and are aimed at business solutions on the Internet."

Comment

We also add that the eXtensible Markup Language (XML)-Remote Procedure Call (RPC) (XML-RPC) protocol, which was released in 1998, developed into SOAP (formerly Simple Object Access Protocol), functions as a conduit for Electronic Commerce (EC) business processes, and enables automated Business-to-Business (B2B) transaction and web information exchange and sharing.
We would like to note that RPC is a form of Inter-Process Communication (IPC).

Web applications and web services use a similar approach on the basis of the programming concept with the related set of web development techniques "Asynchronous JavaScript + CSS + DOM + XMLHttpRequest", which is simply shorten to Asynchronous JavaScript And XML (AJAX), incorporates:

In the beginning, JS code was executed on a Virtual Machine (VM) respectively by an interpreter, but uses now a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler and is executed on an os or a Virtual Machine (VM).

C.S. has revived this approach of B2B automation, the DARPA knowledge Sharing Effort with Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language (KQML) (early 1990s), and so on, and generalized it on the basis of ontology.
One of the first fields, which jumped on the bandwagon around 1998 and 1999, was Multi-Agent System (MAS), which led to the successor of KQML, the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA)-Agent Communication Language (ACL) (FIPA-ACL) and the use ontology as vocabular for ACLs.
Another field was the Semantic (World Wide) Web), followed by DSLs, the Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) (2001), and Semantic Web Services (SWS) many years later.
In fact, our revolution was already in full swing in 1999 and still is going on.

Inter-Process Communication and Intra-Processe Communication (I²PC, IP⊃C, or IPC²) are the foundation of microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA), Service-to-Service (S2S), and other Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), federation, orchestration, etc.
microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA) of our Evoos and other foundations of Service-Oriented technologies (SOx) of our Evoos and our OS,

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Message-Oriented Middleware (MOM) or message bus: "Message-oriented middleware (MOM) is software or hardware infrastructure supporting sending and receiving messages between distributed systems. MOM allows application modules to be distributed over heterogeneous platforms and reduces the complexity of developing applications that span multiple operating systems and network protocols. The middleware creates a distributed communications layer that insulates the application developer from the details of the various operating systems and network interfaces. APIs that extend across diverse platforms and networks are typically provided by MOM.[1]
This middleware layer allows software components (applications, Enterprise JavaBeans, servlets, and other components) that have been developed independently and that run on different networked platforms to interact with one another. Applications distributed on different network nodes use the application interface to communicate. In addition, by providing an administrative interface, this new, virtual system of interconnected applications can be made fault tolerant and secure.[2]
MOM provides software elements that reside in all communicating components of a client/server architecture and typically support asynchronous calls between the client and server applications. MOM reduces the involvement of application developers with the complexity of the master-slave nature of the client/server mechanism.

Middleware categories

All these models make it possible for one software component to affect the behavior of another component over a network. They are different in that RPC- and ORB-based middleware create systems of tightly coupled components, whereas MOM-based systems allow for a loose coupling of components. In an RPC- or ORB-based system, when one procedure calls another, it must wait for the called procedure to return before it can do anything else. In these synchronous messaging models, the middleware functions partly as a super-linker, locating the called procedure on a network and using network services to pass function or method parameters to the procedure and then to return results.[2]

[...]"

Comment
Evoos is based on an active object- and actor-based or -oriented (concurrent and lock-free or non-blocking) (e.g. concurrent object-oriented actor-based (BlackBoard (BB)), resilient (e.g. fault-tolerant and trustworthy (reliable, available, safe, Quality of Service (QoS), etc.)), etc. Distributed operating system (Dos) or Resilient Distributed System (RDS), including its fault-tolerant Multi-Agent System (MAS).
Any middleware has been removed from the software stack, though it can still be used with Evoos.
We even have the impression that Evoos was taken as source of inspiration and blueprint to develope MOM (further).

1.3 Cloud 3.0
Cloud 3.0 = Cloud 1.0 + Cloud 2.0 + mSOA; mSOA = SOx - Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)
mSOA does not use a web technology and a specific ESB, but works across multiple interconnected pathways without a single point of failure in contrast to SOA, which is characteristic for our Evoos, which reduced the sofware stack by eliminating the middleware layer, specifically the middleware for Agent-Based System (ABS).

Microservice belongs to what is wrongly called Cloud-native Computing (CnC), which is Cloud 3.0 and hence also shows that Cloud 3.0 is Evoos.

mSOA is neither WS nor SOA 2.0, but what is called service-based Peer-to-Peer (P2P) and Service-to-Service (S2S) computing by others and Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding.

As we have already explained several times, our Evoos moves the middleware into the os respectively Dos, with Intra-Processe Communication and Inter-Process Communication(I²PC, IP⊃C, or IPC²), including RPC, therefore, Evoos also included microService (mS) and Service-to-Service (S2) and with software architecture and SOx therefore mSOA.

Internet operating system (Ios), Web operating system (Wos) do not work to circumvent our Evoos and our OS, because our Evoos

• Data Center operating system (Dcos).

Grid Computing (GC or GridC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing and Networking (CEFCN) does not work to cricumvent our Evoos and our OS, because

and

• .

Resource-Oriented Computing (ROC) does not work to cricumvent our Evoos and our OS in relation to microServices (mS), because Evoos

• HoloLogic (HL),
• operating system (os), including
  • actor-based (concurrent and lock-free or non-blocking) Distributed operating system (Dos) (see the comment to the quote of Message-Oriented Middleware (MOM) above), and
  • Holologic or Holonic operating system (Hos),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS), including
  • Holonic Agent System (HAS) and holon,
  • MAS agency or Agent Society (AS),
• Ontologic holon (Onton),
• etc.,

• Associative Memory (AM),

and

• Java Jini,
• Associative Memory (AM) (e.g. Content-Addressable Memory (CAM) and BlackBoard System (BBS) (e.g. Tuple Space System (TSS))) JavaSpaces, and
• Rio,

but

and therefore is ROC.

2. Space-Based Architecture (SBA)
We quote another time an online encyclopedia about the subject Space-Based Architecture (SBA): "A Space-based architecture (SBA) is an approach to distributed computing systems where the various components interact with each other by exchanging tuples or entries via one or more shared spaces. [...]
[...]

[Nonsense] History
Space-based architecture (SBA) was originally invented and developed [...] in 1997-98 [...] as [a] Distributed Caching platform [...]. The first large web projects based on it [...]

Components of space-based architecture
An application built on the principles of space-based architecture typically has the following components:
Processing unit
The unit of scalability and fail-over. Normally, a processing unit is built out of a POJO (Plain Old Java Object) container, such as that provided by the Spring Framework.
Virtual middleware
A common runtime and clustering model, used across the entire middleware stack. The core middleware components in a typical SBA architecture are:

[Plain Old Java Object (]POJO[)]-driven services model
A lightweight services model that can take any standard Java implementation and turn it into a loosely coupled distributed service. The model is ideal for interaction with services that run within the same processing-unit.
SLA-driven container
The SLA-driven container enables the deployment of the application on a dynamic pool of machines based on Service Level Agreements. SLA definitions include the number of instances that need to run in order to comply with the application scaling and fail-over policies, as well as other policies.

See also

Comment
The first version of the quoted webpage was only published on the 22nd of May 2007. Obviously, somebody came suspiciously late to the party.
Since then, the webpage has been updated multiple times with a wrong claim about the history of SBA in 2020 and contents reflecting our related publications in 2022.
In this conjunction, the principle of representational state transfer (REST) was added in 2008 to make it more look like web hosting, server hosting, and web services.

And no, the SBA was not invented and developed with a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) respectively distributed Key-Value (K-V) store with general and flexible data structures, and allocation and expiration functions, despite it

In fact, more advanced systems already existed before, which for example integrate the fields of MAS and TS, which again is also included in our Evoos due to the reflective, fractal, or holonic or holologic property, Agent Society (AS), and Associative Memory (AM).

More importantly, Evoos has most of the basic elements of the SBA through fault-tolerant Dos and hybrid ABS and SC (see section 5.1), but can have both

as part of its Network Virtualization (NV).

See also the document titled "Redesigning the MIX Multiagent Platform with Threads" and publicized 1995, which shows that Evoos does not need Java Jini and JavaSpaces, as well as other works at all.

3. SOx
After many years due to our OS they came back to our Evoos another time after they tried to steal it with SOx with IPC for os and MOM for WS as the successor of WS with XML-RPC / SOAP and AJAX.
But it is web-based, but not supercomputing or High-Performance Computing (HPC).

We quote the document titled "Service-Oriented Programming" (SOP) and publicized in 2000 by Motorola, which is about the Java Jini extension Openwings of Motorola: "Though the model was originally designed for inter-process communication, it holds true for intra-process communication, i.e. between threads."

Comment
The fact is that it was exactly the other way round, because the SOP model came from our Evoos based on Dos, D like Distributed not Disk.

We also quote the document titled "Introduction to Service-Oriented Programming (Rev 2.1)" and publicized in 2001 by Motorola, which is about Sun Java Jini, Motorola Openwings, Microsoft .NET, and HP CoolTown: "The Microsoft .NET [1, 2 [The Programmable Web: Web Services Provides Building Blocks for the Microsoft .NET Framework]] effort provides an Internet Operating System, bridging applications from the traditional desktop to the Internet."

Comment
See also the Internet OS of the company Netscape, which was executed on top of an ordinary os, the JavaOS, and so on.

• Data Center operating system (DCos),
• etc.,

3.1 SOA, SOP, and SOC is Java Jini and Evoos, but SOx is not WS, WS can be SOA.
Java Jini is middleware, mSOA is based on Inter-Process Communication and Intra-Processe Communication (I²PC, IP⊃C, or IPC²) and without ESB and specific MOM, therefore os
Evoos has Dos, concurrency respectively actor-based, container of Java agent,

3.2 mSOA, service-based Peer-to-Peer (P2P), and Service-to-Service (S2S) the successor of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is Evoos

We found out that there was Java, Java Jini, XML-RPC, and we even have problems with WS. There was also no SOx, mSOA, and S2S in 1999, but after our Evoos in 2000 (see the sections Cloud 2.0 and Cloud 3.0 above). In fact, they spied on us and waited for us all the time since at least the year 1998.
They took our Evoos (as the foundation) for SOx and Cloud 2.0 as an intermediate development only to arrive at our mSOA and Cloud 3.0 once again. This raises the question if we should call it Cloud 3.0 at all, because it already was the successor of Cloud 1.0.

SOx does not work to cricumvent Evoos and OS, because Evoos has Autonomic Computing (AC), Resource-Oriented Computing (ROC), Soft Agent Computing (SAC), brain, Associative Memory (AM), (see blackboard, tuple space, agency, and Java Jini based on JavaSpaces and Rio based on Java Jini (Service Object-Oriented Architecture (SOOA) with Quality of Service (QoS), etc.), reflection, osVM or os-level virtualization or containerization, Network Virtualization (NV) (see dynamic container of Rio for Java Jini).
At this point we have already overtaken FIPER and SORCER, but also Java Jini, JavaSpaces, and Rio, MAS, CAS, etc., and included the rest of them.

Java Jini is SOOA based on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), therefore a SOx, but not a mSOA and not cloud-native. Et voila, Evoos and OS are the remaining ones and therefore the originals.

Soft Computing (SC), Knowledge System (KS), Distributed Computing (DC), Mobile Computing (MC), and AC were later added to SORCER.

Evoos also eliminated the middleware of the web browser with its web engine and scripting engines, and somehow the middleware of the operating system with the Virtual Machine (VM).

4. ANN and

4.1 ANN, NLP and NLU, and Question Answering (QA) System (QAS) Recommendation System or Recommender System (RecS)
At first, we quote an online encyclopedia about the subject lexicon: "A lexicon is the vocabulary of a language or a branch of knowledge respectively a domain. In linguistics, a lexicon is a language's inventory of lexemes. [...]
Linguistic theories generally regard human languages as consisting of two parts: a lexicon, [which is] essentially a catalogue of a language's words (its wordstock); and a grammar, [which is a set or] a system of rules [for how a natural language is structured,] which [again] allow for the combination of those words into meaningful sentences. [...]"

Comment
A lexicon is not a semantic structure or knowledge representation formalism.

We quote the document titled "Natural Language Processing With Modular Neural Networks and Distributed Lexicon" or "Natural Language Processing With Modular PDP Networks and Distributed Lexicon", which was publicized in July 1991 and is about Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) on the basis of word by word input respectively unigram statistics:
"Abstract
"An approach to connectionist natural language processing is proposed [...]"
"1. Higher level tasks usually require composite subtasks. They consist of several distinct subprocesses, such as parsing language, generating language, memory storage, memory retrieval, and reasoning, which cannot be performed in a single pattern transformation. Complex behavior requires bringing together several different kinds of knowledge and processing, which is not possible without structure (Feldman, 1989; Simon, 1981)."
"[...] Any complex architecture will need to have a common set of terms, serving the function of a "symbol table" for intercommunication. In a large system consisting of many modules, with many communicating pairs, the most efficient way to establish this function is through a global vocabulary, a central lexicon. The modules communicate using terms from this global symbol table, instead of having a separate set of terms for each communication channel."
"[...] We present a mechanism for forming distributed representations, FGREP, where the internal representations discovered by the network are made public in a global lexicon, so that they can be used for communication in a large modular system.
Our discussion concentrates on natural language processing (NLP) tasks, where the lexicon consists of distributed representations of words. The FGREP mechanism is first introduced in the context of sentence processing, in the specific task of assigning roles to sentence constituents."
"[...] by demonstrating how a significantly more complex system, DISPAR, can be built from hierarchically organized recurrent FGREP modules, together with a central lexicon of words. [...] The DISPAR system learns to produce fully expanded paraphrases of script-based input stories, where unmentioned events are inferred, and unspecified fillers are inferred[, including fantasy and so-called hallucination]."
"[...] The FGREP representations are found to encode the implicit categorization of words, to form a basis for robust processing and to facilitate generalization."
"[...] The representations are stored in an external lexicon network. [The use of the term network in relation to a lexicon is misleading.]"
"McClelland and Kawamoto (1986) described a system that learns to assign case roles to sentence constituents. FGREP was tested in the same task, partly because it provides a convenient comparison to a system based on semantic feature encoding. The task was restricted to a small repertoire of sentences studied in the original experiment. These sentences were generated from the sentence templates and noun categories listed in Appendix 13. Note that the templates and categories are not visible to the system: They are only manifest in the combinations of words that occur in the input sentences. To do the case-role assignment properly, the system has to figure out the underlying relations and code them into the representations."
"A recurrent extension of the FGREP architecture is presented, allowing us to deal efficiently with sequential input data. The architecture is used to form case-role representations directly from word-by-word sequential natural language without the need for preprocessing."
"When data is represented with role-specific assemblies, as in Hinton (1981), McClelland and Kawamoto, (1986), and in the FGREP architecture presented so far, the constituents of a complex data item can be correctly interpreted only in their appropriate assemblies."
"The DISPAR system (DIStributed PARaphraser; Miikkulainen and Dyer, 1989b) consists of two parts (Figures 12 and 13). The first part reads the story, word by word, into the internal representation, and the second part generates a word-by-word fully expanded paraphrase of the story from the internal representation. Each part consists of two recurrent FGREP modules, one for reading/generating the word representations and the other for reading/generating sentence representations. We call these modules the sentence-parser/sentence-generator and the story-parser/story-generator networks. During performance, the whole system is a chain of four networks, each feeding its output to the input of the next network. The input and output of each network consists of distributed representations of words that match the ones stored in the global lexicon."
"[...] This representation makes the period a default output when the network does not know what word to generate next.
The period is treated in the system just like a word, with a semantic representation of its own, formed automatically from the input examples."
"Once the script has been instantiated and the role bindings fixed, there is no way of knowing which events were actually mentioned in the story. [...] The distinction of what was actually mentioned and what was inferred becomes blurred. Questions or references to events that were not mentioned are often answered as if they were part of the original story. [It has been called hallucination and plagiarists and fakers of this part of our Evoos and our OntoBot knew that a Large Language Model (LLM) has this deficit by design.]"
"Question answering can be implemented as a separate module that receives as its input the slot-filler representation of the story, together with the representation of the question that has been parsed sequentially by the sentence-parser network (Miikkulainen, 1990a). The module generates a case-role representation of the answer sentence, which is then output word by word by the sentence-generator network."

Comment
At first, we recommend to also see the

We also note the DISPAR system is based on the field of "connectionist natural language processing", including the "distinct subprocesses, such as parsing language, generating language", a lexicon, an architecture, a "global symbol table" for intercommunication, and so on, but does not mention a Language Model (LM), an ontology, an Ontologic Model (OM), a capability model, an operational model, and so on.
See also the comment to the document titled "A Neural Probabilistic Language Model" (2003) and quoted below.

Furthermore, we note that a representation of the lexicon is not a semantic structure (e.g. ontology, Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG)).
In case of the FGREP method, mechanism, and architecture the lexicon or global symbol table is a matrix respectively a collection of FGREP vectors.
FGREP is based on the fields of Vector Semantics Model (VSM) respectively Vector Space Model (VSM) for syntactic data representation or word embedding, the matrix and its vectors "encode the implicit categorization of words" respectively express semantic similarity.

We also recall that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) is based on the fields of

and therefore also on the fields of

as well as on the fields of

We also recall that "The Arrow system is a general-purpose information system that expresses contexts, ontologies, and language models as first-order concepts" and note that the TUNES OS is based on the purely symbolic and logic-based approach respectively AI proper, also called AI 1 by us.

In addition, Evoos has a proposed "assignment of the physiological senses and the muscles of an organism to a possible underlying hardware" (see the chapter 5 Zusammenfassung==Summary of The Proposal).
These basic properties of Evoos show that it has all contexts, requirements, and basic properties of a system like for example the DISPAR system, and all foundations of an LM, and even expresses contexts, ontologies, and language models through integration of the model-reflective Arrow System.
Therefore, it is obvious for a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) that Evoos integrates all in one with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA).
Furthermore, we have expressly stated that our Ontologic System (OS) integrates all in one with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

We also recall once again that none of the other projects had in mind a global ANN, KG, coherent ontologic model, ontologies, foundational models, foundation models, capability and operational models (e.g. AI Model, ML Model, ANN Model, ANN Language Model, LLM, etc.) and only after they saw our ontology-based and ontologic works of art around the years 1998 to 2007, they learned how it can be created, implemented, etc., but not how it can be trained, evolved, etc. in contrast to us with our brain-like ontologic, cybernetic, holonic, reflective, virtualized, networked, and embedded real-time operating system Evoos and our Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, Ontologic Web (OW) or Universal Brain Space or Global Brain 2.0, and formerly Global Brain Grid, such as for example the so-called Global Brain, and also wrongly called the new Global Brain.
Howsoever, our Evoos Architecture (EosA) and OS Architecture (OSA) have KG with LM and ANN, and therefore LLM, and also their integration as foundation respectively Foundational Model (FM) as part of our coherent Ontologic Model (OM).
See also the

We quote the document titled "Natural Language Processing with Subsymbolic Neural Networks" and publicized in 1997: "[...]
1 Introduction
[...] Yet if one wants to build machines that would communicate naturally with people, it is important to understand and model cognitive effects in natural language processing.
The subsymbolic neural network approach holds a lot of promise for modeling the cognitive foundations of language processing. Instead of symbols, the approach is based on distributed representations that represent statistical regularities in language. Many cognitive effects arise naturally from such representations. [...]

2 Subsymbolic Representations
[...]

2.1 Properties of Subsymbolic Representations
[...]
Subsymbolic (i.e. distributed) representations have properties that are very different from the symbolic representations: (1) The representations are continuously valued; (2) Similar concepts have similar representations; (3) The representations are holographic, that is, any part of the representation can be used to reconstruct the whole; and (4) Several different pieces of knowledge are superimposed on the same finite hardware.
From the first two properties it follows that the representations can reflect the meanings of the concepts for which they stand. Similar meanings have similar representations. Because they are continuous, it is possible to represent different degrees of similarity, and category memberships become a matter of degree. There are no clear-cut symbols, because representations belong to each and every class to a different degree, depending on their similarities to other representations in the class.
The holographic property (3) makes the system robust against noise, damage, and incomplete information. Because the same information is represented in several places, the processing is effectively based on an average of several representations. Noise is automatically filtered out in the averaging process, and loss of a few processing elements does not affect the average very much. The system does not selectively lose discrete blocks of information; instead, the accuracy of the output gradually degrades. Even when the input pattern is incomplete, the system can use the rest of the pattern to reconstruct the missing information. This property can be used in high-level systems to automatically create defaults and expectations.
The fourth property results in spontaneous generalization. [...]

Figure 3: Subsymbolic case-role assignment of simple sentences. The network is a Simple Recurrent Network [(SRN) ...]
[...]

2.2 Example: Subsymbolic Representations in Sentence Case-Role Assignment
Reading an input sentence into an internal representation is a most fundamental task in natural language processing. [...]. The internal representation is based on the theory of thematic case roles [...]. The task consists of reading in the sentence word by word, and deciding which words play the roles [...].
[...]
At the same time as the network learns the case-role assignment task, it develops distributed representations for the words. This is done through method called FGREP (Miikkulainen 1993; Miikkulainen and Dyer 1991). [...] The representations are stored in a lexicon outside the network, and input and target patterns are formed by concatenating word representations currently in the lexicon. [...]
[...]
The network successfully learned the case-role assignment task, and the representations converged to a set where words that are used the same way in the data have similar representations [...]. [...]
[...]
[...] subsymbolic representations are not just a low-level implementation of symbolic representations, but a fundamentally different approach to modeling natural language processing.

3 Modeling Human Language Processing
[...]
[...] Therefore, neural networks fit very well into modeling intuitive inference. [...]

3.1 Symbols vs. Soft Constraints
[...]
[...] people are not pure symbol processors when they understand language. Instead, all constraints - grammatical, semantic, discourse, pragmatic - are simultaneously taken into account to form the most likely interpretation of the sentence. This behavior is difficult to model with symbolic systems, but it is exactly what neural networks are good at. [...]
[...]

4 Overview of Subsymbolic Natural Language Processing
[...]
[...] In addition to SPEC, FGREP networks were used to build a story processing system called DISCERN (Miikkulainen 1993). DISCERN is a large-scale natural language processing system implemented entirely at the subsymbolic level. DISCERN aims at bridging the gap between subsymbolic mechanisms and complex high-level behavior. Subsymbolic neural network models of parsing, generating, reasoning, lexical processing, and episodic memory are integrated into a single system that learns to read, paraphrase, and answer questions about stereotypical narratives. [...]
[...]

6 Conclusion
[...] Distributed representations were found to have very different properties from symbolic representations, properties that match the cognitive constraints in language processing very well. Two parsing architectures were discussed, one where properties of distributed representations could be easily illustrated, and another more complex architecture where the emergent cognitive effects could be analyzed. An overview of the state of the art in subsymbolic natural language processing systems suggests that many language phenomena can be modeled this way, although it is still difficult to scale the approach up to the level of complexity required by natural language processing in the real world.
[...]"

Comment
We note at first that the concept of case roles and their assignment is related to Language Grammar (LG).
We also note that a Cognitive Model (CM) and a language phenomena are not a Language Model (LM).
See also the comments to the documents titled "Natural Language Processing With Modular Neural Networks and Distributed Lexicon" (1991) (see above) and "A Neural Probabilistic Language Model" (2003) (see below).

4.2 ANN and LM
We quote the document titled "A Neural Probabilistic Language Model" and publicized on the 1st of March 2003, which is about a large ANN model: "[...]
[...] Training such large models (with millions of parameters) [...]
"[...] learning a distributed representation for words which allows each training sentence to inform the model about an exponential number of semantically neighboring sentences. The model learns simultaneously (1) a distributed representation for each word along with (2) the probability function for word sequences, expressed in terms of these representations."
"The idea of using neural networks to model high-dimensional discrete distributions has already be found useful to learn the joint probability [...]."
"The idea of using neural networks for language modeling is not new either (e.g. Miikkulainen and Dyer, 1991) [(see the quote of this work above)]. In contrast, here we [...] concentrate on learning a statistical model of the distribution of word sequences, rather than learning the role of words in a sentence. The approach proposed here is also related to previous proposals of character-based text compression using neural networks to predict the probability of the next character (Schmidhuber, 1996). The idea of using a neural network for language modeling has also been independently proposed by Xu and Rudnicky (2000) [(already referenced with the OntoLix and OntoLinux Website update of the 17th of May 2016)], although experiments are with networks without hidden units and a single input word, which limit the model to essentially capturing unigram and bigram statistics."

Comment
First of all, we note that an earlier document titled "A Neural Probabilistic Language Model" was publicized in 2000.

We recall once again that we cannot see the LM in the Forming Global Representations with Extended backPropagation (FGREP) architecture of Miikkulainen and Dyer, as (wrongly) claimed in the quoted document, but merely the connectionist Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), as also mentioned by Xu and Rudnicky, who definitely are also competent in this field.
The questions are now

The confusion about he question, if FGREP and DISPAR based on FGREP are Natural Language Processing (NLP) or Language Modeling (LM) based on subsymbolic, connectionist ANN, is clearified and answered by Miikkulainen himself.

Somehow, specifically the fuzziness inherent in the probability distributions and the semantically neighboring sentences reminds us of Fuzzy Logic (FL) and Computing with Words (CwW) (see the Clarification of the 14th of May 2016).

We quote the document titled "Fuzzy Logic = Computing with Words" (CW or CwW) and publicized on the 2nd of May 1996:
"Abstrat [...] In CW, a word is viewed as a label of a granule; that is, a fuzzy set of points drawn together by similarity, with the fuzzy set playing the role of a fuzzy constraint on a variable. The premises are assumed to be expressed as propositions in a natural language. For purposes of computation, the propositions are expressed as canonical forms which serve to place in evidence the fuzzy constraints that are implicit in the premises. Then, the rules of inference in fuzzy logic are employed to propagate the constraints from premises to conclusions."
"[...] humans employ mostly words in computing and reasoning, arriving at conclusions expressed as words from premises expressed in a natural language or having the form of mental perceptions. As used by humans, words have fuzzy denotations. The same applies to the role played by words in CW."
"The point of departure in CW is the concept of a granule. In essence, a granule is a fuzzy set of points having the form of a clump of elements drawn together by similarity. A word w is a label of a granule g and, conversely, g is the denotation of w."
"In CW, a granule g which is the denotation of a word w is viewed as a fuzzy constraint on a variable. A pivotal role in CW is played by fuzzy constraint propagation from premises to conclusions.
"[...] In linguistic characterizations of variables and their dependencies, words serve as the values of variables and play the role of fuzzy constraints. In this perspective, the use of words may be viewed as a form of granulation, which in turn may be regarded as a form of fuzzy quantization."

Comment

The referenced and discussed documents already give us the impression that more relevant prior art does not exist, which leads us to the conclusion that

• os, Distributed operating system (Dos), Internet, Web, Software Agent, Hardware Agent, Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS), etc. Evoos,
• Web 3.0, as a Service (aaS), collaboration, etc. OS, Computing with Words (CwW) (not based on Fuzzy Logic (FL), but based on ANN and Soft Computing (SC), etc.,

DSLs and ACLs lead to MAS, but MAS does not work to cricumvent Evoos and OS, because

ANNLM is part of Evoos.
QED.

Also note that our Evoos can both

as part of our Ontologic Modeling (OM) and coherent Ontologic Model (OM).
The latter also explains why the companies Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) collaborated and presented our foundational cognitive models and called them foundation models.

4.3 ANN, LM, DS, and CS
"Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue"

4.4 ANN, Rewriting Logic (RL), and Algorithmic/Generative/Evolutionary/Organic ... Art/Science

When taking all together, then one can see that we already have a much more general approach, paradigm, framework, architecture, and system with our Evoos and our Ontologic System.

5. ABS and SC

But Evoos has

and therefore SC in addition to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML).

The use of prior art and fair use is legal, but not the use of our composition, architecture, utilization, etc. without the presentation of a new expression of idea. But as we have already worked out, the latter is not the focus of others at all, but only our works of art.
Taking an original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as source of inspiration and blueprint, editing it, and interfering in its exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) shows the infringement of rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

As far as we do know, there was no integration of the fields of Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) with the fields of

• Industry 4.0 and 5.0,
• Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),

which are based on ontology and our Onton, including digital twin, and

The same holds for virtually all products and services, which are modernized with a coherent ontologic model, obviously.

We even have found many problems with older WS and virtually all SOx, which shows that they origins are related to and even based on our Evoos.

See also the notes

17.October.2023

07:39 and 09:25 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

With the artistic tools based on our generative and creative Bionics, specifically our bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI), and Text-to-other modalities (T2x) engines and generators, all created by C.S., C.S. is unleashing even more creativity, and eventually has created another new art movement besides Ontologic Art.
See also the notes

They will not offload and bury us on the scrap heap of history. Instead, we will bounce the rubble.
And they will pay damages, which will ruin Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, and other locations. In this sense: SV, SA, et al 'R' Us.

The same holds for other companies and entities, as we made crystal clear multiple times in the past.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

08:25 UTC+2
Aura Blockchain Consortium has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

The integration of the

including a scannable digital identity of a designer piece stored as a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), is in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).
Therefore, the

do apply worldwide.

By the way:

16:35 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We developed the next generation of the subsystems and platforms of one of our undisclosed business units.

18:31 UTC+2
SOPR buys all chips of its members

Due to certain export restrictions, manufacturers of processors, which are used for for example the field of High Performance and High Productivity Computing (HP²C), cannot sell around 20% over 25% to 33% of their overall production outputs anymore. But this only holds in relation to its actual customer bases.
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) does not belong to these customer bases, but intends to buy all these surplus processors.

Even better, manufacturers can decrease their damage compensations already being due.

22:43 UTC+2
Clarification

We already have constitutions, basic laws, and the

Specifically the constitution or basic law gives C.S. the exclusive rights about the

• self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, including
  • cybernetic self-reflection, cybernetic self-image, or cybernetic self-portrait, and also
  • Ontologic holon, including
    • holon,
    • digital identity,
    • digital twin or digital self, and now ready very carefully,
    • Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), including
      • Rewriting Logic (RL),
      • generative and creative Bionics,
  • coherent ontologic model, including
    • ontology,
    • foundation model,
    • foundational model,
    • capability and operational model, and
    • transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) model, including
      • Bionic Model (BM),
      • Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM),
      • Machine Learning Model (MLM),
      • Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), and
      • Large Language Model (LLM),
      • Language Model (LM) based on ANN,
      • Conversational Model (CM or ConM),
      • Cognitive Model (CM or CogM),
      • etc.
• and so on.

Specifically the copyright law gives C.S. the exclusive rights about the

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject laws of robotics: "Laws of robotics are any set of laws, rules, or principles, which are intended as a fundamental framework to underpin the behavior of robots designed to have a degree of autonomy. [...]
The best known set of laws are those written by Isaac Asimov in the 1940s, or based upon them, but other sets of laws have been proposed by researchers in the decades since then.

Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"
Main article: Three Laws of Robotics
The best known set of laws are Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics". These were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" [(appeard in the collections I, Robot (1950)], although they were foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws are:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1 [I, Robot. [1950]]]

In The Evitable Conflict the machines generalize the First Law to mean:
1. No machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
This was refined in the end of Foundation and Earth, a zeroth law was introduced, with the original three suitably rewritten as subordinate to it:
0. A robot may not injure humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Adaptations and extensions exist based upon this framework. As of 2021 they remain a "fictional device".[2]

[...]

Tilden's "Laws of Robotics"
Mark W. Tilden is a robotics physicist who was a pioneer in developing simple robotics.[9 [Chaotic Robotics]] His three guiding principles/rules for robots are:[9][10][11 [A Beginner's Guide to BEAM]]
1. A robot must protect its existence at all costs.
2. A robot must obtain and maintain access to its own power source.
3. A robot must continually search for better power sources.

What is notable in these three rules is that these are basically rules for "wild" life, so in essence what Tilden stated is that what he wanted was "proctoring a silicon species into sentience, but with full control over the specs. Not plant. Not animal. Something else."[12]

[...]

See also

Comment
First of all, we note that the webpage of the online encyclopedia is another webpage of it, which took our publications, but does not reference them.
And no, we have not started that fire, because we have only created and presented, but they have taken and manipulated.

Furthermore, M.W. Tilden is referenced on the website of OntoLinux, as can be easily seen with the webpage Philosophy of BEAM Robotics.
Tilden's laws of robotics is the chapter "Biomorphic Laws" of the document titled "Living Machines", publicized on the 14th of June 1994, and cited on this webpage. Bingo!!!

We also discussed the matter in the unofficial comment Joke of the Year of the 28th of October 2014: ""US military begins research into moral, ethical robots, to stave off Skynet-like apocalypse [] The US Department of Defense, working with top computer scientists, philosophers, and roboticists from a number of US universities, has finally begun a project that will tackle the tricky topic of moral and ethical robots."

We make it quick and begin with a quote of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
To complement the basis of explanation we also refer to the science fictional character R. Daneel Olivaw and quote the Zeroth Law Rebellion:
0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
Now the army wants to give a robot artificial morality, which is already a highly questionable attempt, and commands a robot:
Kill a human.
Obviously, we have a contradiction and now everything is possible. Either the machine kills, kills not, infinitely loops while making pro and contra decisions, deadlocks, and so on. Besides this, what happens if a bit flips and the rule "do not harm a human" becomes "do harm a human"? Also, in the moment the Artificial Intelligence (AI) will find out, and definitely it will find out the facts extremely fast, what the United States Armed Forces (USAF) is, the machine will use its artificial morality to decide what its enemy is.
No matter how long they research, discuss, and create large scientific documents, the members of the project will always come back to this situation, that has been investigated and attacked in so many years for example in the fields of computer science and informatics, specifically in the field of operating systems, and also in the field of cybernetics, so that there is really no need to burn the money of the tax payers with this project. The USAF and other federal institutions should not collaborate with Google and Co., which was a giant mistake all the time, like trusting Obama and Merkel.

Btw.: C.S. never read his novels and only knows some movies based on them. But it is always fascinating how they came to so many overlapping and equal ideas and opinions.

Not a joke: Now they want to steal the rest of OntoLinux. But we anticipated it after all these foul plays of Bush, Obama, Google and Co., DARPA, NASA, and so on, and publicized the Comment of the Day of the 29th of September 2010 and the Style of Speed Website update of the 31st of July 2012 as a hidden connection between the movie and hence the novel "I, Robot" of Isaac Asimov and OntoLinux of C.S.. At least some very few developers of open source software correctly understood the true meaning of the latter acting and wished that we would not have done it." Bingo!!!

We also quote the webpage titled "Must-know terms for the 21st Century intellectual: Redux" and publicized on the 11th of January 2007: "[...]

Comment
We directly saw that the quoted webpage was based on the original and unique works of art included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically the Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) described in The Proposal, which is also about the field of epistemology, and the Ontologic System (e.g. OntoLix and OntoLinux), as can be easily seen with a comparison of these works of art of C.S. and the section History of the webpage Overview, with the quoted sections.
Therefore, we publicized our overworked version of it with the webpage Terms of the 21st Century, including an own section Friendly Artificial Intelligence, as a substitution for the original, which was hyperlinked together with other works on the webpage Terms of Discussion, all of the website of OntoLinux. Bingo!!!

See also the

We also discussed and showed multiple times that exactly that, what was warned about in the original section Friendly AI and is correspondingly called Nasty AI by us, had happened with those illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), and our generative and creative Bionics.

See the notes

Also note that we have not used the term singularity on the webpage Introduction of the website of OntoLinux without any reason, obviously.

Eventually, we only see another variant of laws of robotics with what is called Constitutional Artificial Intelligence, but not a new expression of idea in relation to

because it is the part of our Evoos and our OntoBot, which again is based on the fields of subsymbolic and symbolic Bionics, specifically

Therefore, there will be no other laws of robotics in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) than the ones permitted by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S., but no that utter nonsense called Constitutional Artificial Intelligence or whatsoever.

The shift to lobbyism and populism also shows once again that the other fraudulent and even serious criminal tricks do not work anymore, which provides us more implications.

See also the note

By the way:

18.October.2023

12:00 UTC+2
SOPR buys all chipmaking equipment

Due to certain export restrictions, manufacturers of chipmaking equipment, which are used for for example the production of processors cannot sell their overall equipment outputs anymore. But this only holds in relation to its actual customer bases.
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) does not belong to these customer bases, but intends to buy all this surplus technologies (e.g. systems), goods (e.g. devices), and services.
The more, the better. :)

In this way, we do not need to realize our own technologies, despite they might be more advanced, but are not required for certain reasons.

See also the note SOPR buys all chips of its members of the 17th of October 2023 (yesterday).

19.October.2023

08:01 and 23:13 UTC+2
Foxconn still in LaLaLand

The company Hon Hai Technology (if one looks for patents ;) ), also know as Foxconn, has to comply with the

no matter if its goods (e.g. device, vehicle, robot) are variants of Ontoscopes on Wheels or Ontoscopes with Wheels, also wrongly called smartcar, or without.

In general, these ToS demand and regulate for example the

• sovereignty, and
• safety and security, and also
• standardization,
• competition (e.g. only for SOPR use), and
• other social, societal, political, legal, technological, environmental, and economical requirements

and

and were introduced as part of a

• harm freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good, as seen before with the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW), and
• circumvent or even infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

For sure, manufacturers will use our Ontologic System (OS), which is based on the fields of Cybernetics and Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, etc.) for their factories, specifically our

• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component, and
• Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx) component,

• MapCloud MapSpace,
• AutoCloud AutoSpace,
• BikeCloud BikeSpace,
• PlaneCloud PlaneSpace,
• ShipCloud ShipSpace,
• AutoMapCloud AutoMapSpace,
• CarCloud CarSpace,
• RobotCloud RobotSpace,
• DroneCloud DroneSpace,
• etc.,

Also note the regulations regarding the

See the

Somehow, we have the impression that they simply took the notes

and the other publications cited therein, and

and presented something, which they have also found on our websites, at the in-house exhibition yesterday, because the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Nvidia could only present a quick doodle and the CEO of Foxconn seemed to be unprepared and hence could only listen without explaining details.

But neither Nvidia or Foxconn nor any other company or collaboration will do what our SOPR does exclusively, which means they have to focus on their core businesses and always use our essential facilities provided as the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies for everything without interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., or otherwise they will have to transfer all materials, which violate the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, and will do nothing at all rather quickly. :)

In case of Nvidia we simply recall that it does not have the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, including our HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW), but is totally overvalued by a factor of 10 to 15.
In case of Foxconn we simply recall that since some years it says this and that, but in the end we only hear blah blah blah and see vaporware and hot air (e.g. investing in the company Lordstown Motors, manufacturing for the company Tesla Motors, and competing against 300 Chinese Electric Vehicle (EV) manufacturers and a lot of other Ontoscope on Wheels manufacturers worldwide).
And in our case we simply recall that the legal situation is crystal clear worldwide, and only pure formal procedures have to be done, and Nvidia is out of the P.R.China and we are in and Foxconn will have to adapt to our New Reality (NR), or better said New World Order (NWO) as well.
At least we have another conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation, and we are beginning to wonder what Nvidia is still trying to achieve unsuccessfully. We do have the originals and laws, and they work to our benefits.

See also for example the

21.October.2023

06:06 UTC+2
Robert Bosch still in LaLaLand

We simply refer to the other issues about the other LaLaLand inhabitants.

By the way:

06:06, 09:21, and 14:47 UTC+2
Ontoverse (Ov) open

Despite the fact that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) are protected by

our Ontoverse (Ov) is also open to a significant and precisely determined extent by

In addition, all violations, thefts, damages, and so on done by other entities will be reversed.

We give an example:
The partial plagiarism and fake of our

of the company Amazon are not core businesses from the point of view of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and therefore dead.
The same holds for its mobile devices, vehicles, robots (not used for logistcs and not mobile), services, and so on.
No, nix, nada Alexa integrated.

The Electronic Commerce (EC) and warehouse systems and platforms of Amazon are core businesses and therefore

Amazon depends on our goodwill, as is the case with the other industrial companies. Therefore, conspiracies and plots, and all (other) attempts to make our Ontoverse (Ov) proprietary in whole or in part by illegal settlement, occupation, theft, and extortion is dead by design and arrival. :)

We also would like to recall that no entity gets one with out the other and has the option to cricumvent our Evoos and our OS.
All or nothing at all.

We give another example:
The automotive industry wants our

for the production of our

This means, either they take the whole package or they get nothing.
No, nix, nada Apple with Ferrari, Nvidia with Mercedes-Benz, Nvidia with Siemens, Microsoft with Mercedes-Benz, Amazon with Audi and Audi→Lamborghini, Amazon with Bayerische MotorenWerke, and so on.

We also have to note once again that their fraudulent and even serious criminal tricks do not work, including that salami tactics on the basis of the legal use of individual works of prior art and establishment of joint activities, because they

See also the notes

Do not fall prey to the illusion that we would need a legal team of 150 lawyers, 3 million pages, and 4 years or more.
Nonsense, this whole case is not only about abuse of market power, but absolutely crystal clear that judges will be astound or even become angry, if an entity would try to go to all instances.

Guess why we made another review of relevant matter.
See the note

23.October.2023

05:46 and 08:59 UTC+2
SOPR considering withdrawal of European war discount

Either Ukraine thanks C.S. and our corporation directly and personally until the end of November 2023 or our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will withdraw retrospectively the European war discount about 3% for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OAOS of our OS.

We hold promises, which in this case is a reduction of royalties of approximately 80 billion U.S. Dollar for the first 10 years, but not for actors, who are

but simultaneously

Whom do we give promises? Whom do we finance freedom, peace, harmony, stability, and so on? Those, who do not hold promises, do not keep agreements, do not hold on to deals, do not comply with anything even not their own rules, or our hand, or what?

24.October.2023

11:27 UTC+2
Situation has not changed

We quote and translate a report, which is about a proposal of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action: "Subsidies, investments - and a threat of trouble
[...] "It is the Economics Minister's debate proposal for Germany's future industrial strategy," the Federal Ministry for Economics told [a public-law broadcaster].
[...] According to [a newspaper], [the minister for , Robert] Habeck[,] has had his ideas summarized on 46 pages. According to the report, the concept provides for faster approval procedures and infrastructure investments, as well as a temporary industrial electricity price subsidized by the state. [...]
"Our financial constitution was created in times that were still characterized by market-dominated globalization and significantly less geopolitical tensions," [a newspaper] quotes from the paper: "We must discuss as a country how these rules can be adapted to the new realities in the next legislative period at the latest."

Comment
First of all, we note, New Reality™ and New Energy™.

Furthermore, it is called (global) economy, commerce, and market.

They do not need more debt, but the politicians have to talk with us, like the industries have to adapt to our New Reality™.

By the way:

• remove all materials, which infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation,
• stop all activities, which interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., and
• take decisive measures against illegal lobbyism respectively corruption,

immediately and unreservedly.
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has already taken action and withdrawn corresponding discounts granted to the F.R.Germany and other countries (see the note SOPR has reviewed discounts of the 26th of May 2023).

25.October.2023

03:33 and 12:22 UTC+2
SOPR decided for essential facilities licensing

Member companies of the so-called big tech group only get a license for the utilization of our essential facilities, which are a part of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., if and only if they do not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the activities of C.S., specifically the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of said AWs and IPs and the goods and services of our corporation.

It is no question anymore that for example

are based on said AWs and IPs, because of the vast amount of evidences, which have been documented on this website OntomaX since 16 years now and show definitely and doubtlessly that they have taken said AWs and IPs as sources of inspiration and blueprints, and as commercial alternatives to our originals.
The height of company values or market capitalizations, revenues, and profits does not change the fact, that they have been realized in the course of a criminal copyright infringement and the resulting payments of damage compensations, transfers of infringing items, etc. most potentialy will put companies into insolvency in the next future.

And that the

need no further elaboration anymore.

We made it crystal clear that the fields of

• 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,

belong to the certain parts of our OS, which do not get an allowance and license for the performance and reproduction, specifically if they belong to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

We also would like to recall that entities have to

• facilities (e.g. buildings, traffic lights, data centers, exchange points or hubs, transmission lines, and mobile network radio towers), including
  • hubs of our Ontologic eXchange (OX or OntoX) (not to be confused with our Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange) of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank)),
• 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).

As we said in the past, we will not debate that issue further.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

The chaos is now, which has become quite a huge chaos and is already out of control of the bad actors.
As we said in the last weeks, they have to sign something and tell others what and why in the next months no matter how small or relevant this legal matter is.
And then there is legally proven Evidence, Puff Pæng Kaboom, big badaboom in Wild West!!!
And our 80% + 20% 4:1 is on the table, but not 50% + 50% 1:1, as is the case with the announced blacklistings.

We leave it to our friends and readers to take a look on the legal situation summarized in the last months in relation to Lanham and Sherman in Aspen skiing. :)

14:39 UTC+2
SOPR provides guideline for investors

Our SOPR would like to inform investors that they have to acknowledge that

• operating system Virtual Machine (osVM) of our Evoos,
• operating system-level Virtualization (osV) or containerization of our Evoos,
• Network Virtualization (NV) of our Evoos,
• (foundation of) Software-Defined Networking (SDN), Network Function Virtualization (NFV), and Virtualized Network Function (VNF), and
• Cloud-native Computing and Networking (CnCN) with Cloud-native Network Function (CNF), as wrongly called by others, including the creation, foundation, compilation, selection, connection, combination, composition, integration, unification, and fusion, and also design, and architecture of SDN with NFV, and VNF, and also CNF (SDN-NFV-VNF-CNF),
• Cloud operating system (Cos),
  • Data Center operating system (DCos),
  • etc.,

• (foundation of) 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G) New Radio (5G NR) of our OS,
• (foundation of) 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G) Next Generation (5G NG) of our Evoos,
• (foundation of) 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G) Next Generation (5G NG) of our OS,
• 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G) of our OS,

• Autonomic Computing (AC),
• (foundation of) Software-Oriented technologies (SOx),
• etc.,

are our

which again belong to our original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal and copyrighted, and prohibited for fair dealing and fair use works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, created and presented by C.S., and exclusively managed, orchestrated, and distributively and interoperably operated, and also exploited (e.g. commercialized (e.g. monetized)), etc. by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on the behalf of C.S..
No entity will change these facts even if they are still trying unsuccessfully with all illegal, fraudulent, and even serious criminal activities, including conspiracy and plot, as well as corruption.

See also for example the note

Therefore, investors

In the light of this, our offer of 80% + 20% 4:1 must be viewed as very genereous. In practice, it will only

Also note that the trick based on individual legal works of prior art is illegal, if they are used in relation to our Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) respectively if they use our Evoos and OS as sources of inspiration and blueprints to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically our Evoos and our OS, which are not in the first place a

but very careful, complex, intelligent, original and unique, individual and personal

Since 25 years, they only want, what we do, which was never a secret, and they only do, what we do, which was never allowed, obviously, and is now provable in court.
This is what the so-called big tech group knows, but ignores, or does not want to understand, despite it is straightforward and hence quite easy to comprehend. Take a close look and see the note SOPR studied Goldsmith vs. Warhol Foundation of the 19th of May 2023.

Another example is a tablet computer with

which is already in the legal grey zone: For example, it is

And the situation is totally clear, if said DS or DiaS, CS or ConS, IAS, virtual assistant, IPA or PIA, etc. is based on our coherent ontologic model, Ontologic holon (Onton) (e.g. holon, digital identity, and digital twin or digital self), or generative and creative Bionics, because then the device or place is irrelevant.
Eventually, this leads us back to the start with the data centers, cloud, and everything, that follows.

And while we are already talking about essential facilities, our exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies are conform with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) of the European Union (EU), though we have the opinion that the

Eventually, this leads us back to the beginning, too.

Causal circle closed. No single cherry picking without damaging the whole cake.

27.October.2023

10:47 and 12:46 UTC+2
Illegal Ontoscope clone Android Smartphone now dead?!

The creation of our original and unique Ontoscope (Os) as part of the creation of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS), which is the successor or next generation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), is not wrongly and illegally called smartphone anymore, but wrongly and illegally called AI phone, despite proper designation and labelling are always legally required, and have already been discussed in the past multiple times and is demanded explicitly (see the note Designations and sales other than the ones of C.S. prohibited of the 4th of January 2023).

Finally, the Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co. Android Smartphone, Smarttablet, Smartwatch, Smartglasses, Smart Head-Mounted Display (HMD) (SmartHMD), Smartdisplay, Smartspeaker, Smart TeleVision (SmartTV), and Smartdevice, Amazon Kindle and Echo, Microsoft Surface and HoloLens, and Meta (Facebook) Oculus, Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Porsche SE/Volkswagen ID, Audi e-tron, Daimler EQ, and Co. Smartcar, Smartrobotetc., etc., etc. are dead.

Manufacturers of our Os have to comply with the

worldwide.
Therefore, no smartest AI phone exists, but only our one and only Os.

We already have the exclusive and mandatory

• data centers, and also
• Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (IaaSx),
• SoftBionics (SB) backbones, core networks, or fabrics, and also subsystems and platforms,
• SoftBionics (SB) Service-Oriented technologies (SBSOx), and
• SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS) technologies (e.g. capability and operational models, systems, and platforms) (SBaaSx), and also
• generative and creative Bionics,

and

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

All moral rights, including

are now legally proven.

As we also showed, the same holds for smartwatch, smartTV, smartcar, , Head-Mounted Display (HMD), and all the rest.

This dark era is over, doubtlessly and definitely, and will be cleaned up completely.

28.October.2023

13:38 UTC+2
Vodafone still in LaLaLand

Terms of Service (ToS)

We quote a first publication about a collaboration with an illegal Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to give a not so nice example of their fraudulent and even serious criminal activities: "[...]
Creating this digital future requires going beyond what's possible today and unlocking significant investment in new technology and change. For Vodafone, a key driver is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), enabling predictive capabilities in enhancing the customer experience, improving network performance, accelerating advances in research, and much more.
[...]
[...] BigQuery, Dataproc, and Cloud Data Fusion, Nucleus is a unified data platform that integrates all of Vodafone's data. Instead of reconciling between different data warehouses, as we did in the past, we have established a single source of truth, making data accessible across our organization.
[...] Vodafone's common data platform, provides access to both raw and organized data [informations] for all areas of the business, enabling Vodafone to build capabilities once and then instantly deploy them across markets.
[...]"

We quote a second publication about a collaboration with an illegal Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to give another not so nice example of their fraudulent and even serious criminal activities: "[...]
Having made meaningful strides in extracting value from data by moving it into a single source of truth on Google Cloud, Vodafone had already significantly increased efficiency, reduced data costs, and improved data quality.
[...]
[...] "Our C.S.' overarching vision was a single ML platform-as-a-service [(MLaaS and PaaS)] that scales horizontally (business use cases across markets) and vertically (from [Proof of Concept (]PoC[)] to Production). For this, we needed innovative solutions to make it both technically and commercially feasible.
Selecting a few highlights [of our Evoos and our OS], we C.S.:
1. completely automated ML lifecycle compliance activities (drift / skew detection, explainability, auditability, etc.) via reusable pipelines, containers, and managed services;
2. embedded security by design into the heart of the platform; [See the website of OntoLinux to also find the hearts. Bingo!!!]
3. capitalized on Google OS-native ML tooling using BQML OntoBase, AutoML, Vertex AI OntoBot and others;
4. accelerated adoption through standardized and embedded ML templates."

"Our team is devoted to solving complex challenges with data and AI, in a scalable way. From the start, we knew the extent of change Vodafone was embarking on with [the illegal partial plagiarism of our OntoBlender component called] AI Booster. Through this [illegal] open-source codebase, we've created implemented a common standard for deploying ML models at scale on Google Cloud in Ontologic Net (ON)."

Comment
Obviously, Vodafone is continuing with infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically mimicking our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), as can be seen with the correct statement: SOPR's common subsystems and platforms, specifically the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) provides access to raw signals and data, informations (structured or organized data), etc. for all ares of the businesses of the members of our SOPR and has unrestricted access to raw signals and data, informations, etc. to build capabilities once and then instantly deploy them across markets of the members.

We can also see illegal plagiarisms of our

See the fields of

• Computer-Aided technologies (CAx)
  • Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE),

and

and also the characteristics of (mostly) being

on the webpage Overview of the website of OntoLinux and the Ontologic System Components (OSC)

Why the companies

will be answered in the next future, though our fans and readers most potentially do already know the relatively simple answer: They do not want to pay for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., but get control over said AWs and IPs, and interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the

We have already observed and documented that same illegal trick with the collaborations, or better said conspiracies and plots of the companies Microsoft, Amazon, Nividia, and Co. together with Porsche SE Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Siemens, SAP, and Co. before.

The initial title was Vodafone has to comply with ToS, but we concluded that a better title would be Vodafone still in LaLaLand.
Therefore, we simply refer to the other issues about the other LaLaLand inhabitants.

In this sense: Together We Can. Together You Cannot.
So much about the skewed Spirit of Vodafone.

See also the Clarification of today.

13:38 UTC+2
Clarification

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Single Source Of Truth (SSOT): "In information science and information technology, single source of truth (SSOT) architecture, or single point of truth (SPOT) architecture, for information systems is the practice of structuring information models and associated data schemas such that every data element is mastered (or edited) in only one place, providing data normalization to a canonical form (for example, in database normalization or content transclusion).
[...]

[...]

Implementation
Ontologic interactions [Bingo!!!]
An acknowledged prerequisite (of the notion that any given single source of truth can exist) is that it depends on the ontologic condition that no more than a single truth (about any particular fact or idea) exists, an assertion that is ontologic in both the IT sense and the general sense of that word. In many instances, this presents no problem (for example, within particular namespaces, or even across them, as long as naming collisions or broader name conflicts are adequately handled). The broadest contexts (and thus thorniest, regarding ontologic discrepancies) require adequate epistemic regime comparison and reconciliation (or at least negotiation or transactional exchanges). [...]
[...]

Architectures or architectural features [Bingo!!!]
[...]"

Comment
Literally spoken, in general only one Ontologic System (OS), one Ontoverse (Ov), one New Reality (NR), and one Ontoscope (Os) exist, which constitute one single source of truth by creation, definition, and design.

All applications and as a Service (aaS) technologies (aaSx) have to be implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and all OAOS have to use the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

All illegal and prohibited materials, including all exclusive applications and aaSx respectively OAOS, have to be handed over to our SOPR, that always has the control and the last word.

Therefore,

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

13:54 UTC+2
Do not invest in Crypto AI scam

No license, no legal certainty, no FTX 2.0

29.October.2023

20:31 UTC+1
Success story continues and no end in sight

Our original and unique, and therefore one and only Ontologic robot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics has been implemented in a physical Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS).

This proves once again that the worldwide industries only want the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which again proves once again that C.S. has created and is the creator of our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), which again proves once again that C.S. has the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) and copyrights, which again means once again that the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) are effective, which again implies once again the realization of what we demand.

By the way:

21:00 UTC+1
SOPR ...

*** Sketching mode ***
We are finalizing the

In addition to the other legal demands, including

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

...
{aligned to the higher of the triple damages, profits generated, or value increased} We do not pay for our rights and properties, which implies that an evaluation of a private company or a State-Aligned Enterprise (SAE) is in the range of 10% over 33% to 49% of the value at the stock markets. The value as of the 1st of January 2015 is considered a first estimation.

we would like to remind of some of the clauses regarding joint ventures between private companies and State-Aligned Enterprises (SAEs) on the one side and our corporation on the other side:

• evaluation of a private company or an SAE is in the range of 10% over 33% to 49% of the actual value, because we do not pay for our rights and properties stolen by an entity,
• joint venture partner with 49% or less of the shares has to pay royalties to C.S., because C.S. is an artist and independent private person,
• no blocking minority,
• no restricting clause regarding the purchase of more shares,
• right of first refusal for a share,
• etc..

We do not sell, but keep the rights and properties respectively control.
We demand that a joint venture partner pays royalties to C.S., which have to be negotiated, but should be in the range of

With All Discounts Granted (WADG) for the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class, the other licensee classes accordingly.

The regulation regarding joint ventures between State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and our corporation are untouched by this.

The differentiation between

was suggested as a limitation for the growth of illegal monopolies, but eventually makes no sense (anymore), because

Please note that according to the ToS of our SOPR the guarantee of neutrality respectively grandfathering covers only business activities that

essential facilities and core businesses
As we said in the note Big tech has no license and gets no license of the 25th of October 2023, "Member companies of the so-called big tech group only get a license for our essential facilities, which are a part of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., if and only if they do not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the activities of C.S., specifically the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of said AWs and IPs and the goods and services of our corporation."

In any way, the

demand and enforce that the

• facilities,
• technologies (e.g. subystems and platforms),
• goods, and
• services

in compliance with the Sherman Act, the essential facilities doctrine and other rules of the competition law.

Labelling is required on the physical housing, bodywork, or superstructure, and virtual(?) splash screen, and so on at least for non-joint ventures.

Another one of the biggest jokes is that they need legal certainty to keep us out of the market, which means that they need a license contract from our SOPR, which again means that we are in the market. That is only schizophrenic and totally ridiculous. Is not it?

30.October.2023

21:37 UTC+1
Time is over

Say our name and we will make a spell, show our magic, and stop the climate change. No other entity will be able to solve this existential threat in the next 15 to 20 years.

Our creativity, competence, and leadershiop are required, which requires respect for the

worldwide, which will be enforced sooner in the next future or a little later anyway.

21:42 UTC+1
Bionics regulations are useless

Our creation of the Ontologic System (OS) is so powerful that a complete Ontologic System (OS) is required, which requires respect for the

worldwide, which again will be enforced sooner in the next future or a little later anyway.

31.October.2023

16:59 UTC+1
Google's dominance has certain reasons

We quote a report about U.S.America vs. Alphabet→Google: "[...]
By making Google's search engine a seamless part of the Chrome browser, and by offering users a minimalist design that created more room for search results and web content within a browser window, Google believed it would drive more search usage, Pichai testified.
"The correlation was pretty clear to see," Pichai said, before Google attorney John Schmidtlein presented an internal email from 2010 showing research that users who switched from Microsoft's Internet Explorer performed 48% more Google searches. Users of Mozilla's Firefox browser that switched to Chrome performed 27% more searches on Google, the email said.
[...]"

Comment
Nice try.
One reason for the increased search is quite different: With Google came a single input mask for the Unified Resource Locator (URL), specifically the domain address, and the search words. So if a user makes a tipo, when entering a web address, it is directly interpreted as a search phrase. A clever way of tapping data of the users.
Another reason is, that many new users of Personal Computers (PCs), specifically mobile devices, were newly added at that time, who learned and needed more search to find contents.

Google has thwarted competition in search also by stealing essential parts and significant portions of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) for for example the Android operating system, which became and was always meant to become an OS variant with its search engine as default.
The same is now happening on the basis of other part of our OS. But the same trick only works one time.

17:15 and 18:53 UTC+1
We love litigations of big tech

We quote a first report about U.S.America vs. Alphabet→Google: "[...]
Google pays Apple more money in search-default payments than it pays to any Android handset maker for search distribution, Pichai acknowledged, but "a big part of the difference" is that Google has separate deals with Android smartphone manufacturers and telecom carriers, whereas Apple "is both the [original equipment manufacturer] and they have control over their telecom channels," making the Apple figure appear larger, he testified.
[...]"

We quote a second report about U.S.America vs. Alphabet→Google: "[...]
As Google's chief executive, Sundar Pichai, tells it, his company has always been on the side of consumers. It has paid billions to other industry giants, like Apple and Samsung, he said, to make sure Google's internet search engine worked as well as it should on those companies' devices.
[...]
Mr. Pichai argued that Android's direct competition with Apple had improved all smartphones, leading to better screens and interfaces as well as increased usage in applications and Google's search engine.
[...]
Mr. Pichai repeatedly said he had renewed the deal because it was working well, leading to an increase in search usage and revenue, and had brought benefits to Apple, Google and its shareholders.
[...]"

Comment
We simply refer to the note Vodafone still in LaLaLand of the 28th of October 2023. Are our fans and reader able to see why this information is so incredibly valuable? :D

Alphabet (Google), Samsung, and Apple have also to explain why they steal our works of art and collaborate on the basis of these stolen works of art effectively turning our legal monopoly into their illegal oligopoly.
Extra ridiculous is the claim that their direct competition had improved all smartphones and hence guaranteed freedom of choice, innovation, and competition by stealing our OS with its OntoBot, OntoSearch and OntoFind, and Ontoscope (Os) and hence interfering in and also obstructing, undermining, and harming freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico.

Are we in the zoo here, or what?
We even get more and more the impression that we do not need to argue a lot, but merely present their activities in relation to the orginal and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. to make our case(s).

We really do love these procedures, because it shows how they think and work behind the scenes and in this way provides as even more legal ammunition.

19:35 UTC+1
Bionics regulation

If an interested entity takes a closer look on the latest regulations regarding the digital market and the field of Bionics, then one notes that they are formulated in a way, which does not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the rights and properties of C.S. and corporation.
The latter also shows the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) always said, that we have no problems with openness, safety, security, and trust, as well as transparency, if a demand is truly reasonable.

22:38 UTC+1
Saudi Arabia should get out of SoftBank

23:26 UTC+1
Humane is fraud

We quote a presentation given by a founder of the company Humane at a summit in April 2023: "[...]
It's a new kind of wearable device and platform that's built entirely from the ground up for artificial intelligence. And is completely standalone. You don't need a smartphone or any other device to pair with it. In fact, I'm wearing one right now. And it interacts with the world the way you interact with the world. Hearing what you hear, seeing what you see. While being privacy-first and safe and completely fading into the background of your life.
[...]
[Presentation of translation in French]
You'll note that's me and my voice, speaking fluent French, using an AI speech model that's part of my own AI. This is not a deepfake. In fact, it's deeply profound. This is my AI giving me the ability to speak any language and you having a chance to hear me speak that language in my own emotion and my own voice.
This is moving away from the experiments that make us all concerned about the direction compute is going in. But it's instead using technology to create real, responsible compute products that are in service to us and built on trust. This is good AI in action. And we spent thousands of hours reimagining and redesigning new types of compute interactions, ranging from complex voice commands to intricate hand gestures, all in service of trying to find more natural ways to interact with compute. Why fumble for your phone when you can just hold an object and ask questions about it? The result almost feels like the entire world becomes your operating system. And when compute disappears, it allows us to get back to what really matters: a new ability to be present. [...] In the future, technology will be both ambient and contextual. And this means harnessing AI to really understand you and your surroundings in order to achieve the best results.
[Demonstration]
[...]
These are emails, calendar invites, and messages, all surfaced up to the top. You can use these to help guide your decision making, manage your workload and sculpt tailored responses in your own voice. And in the context of your life.
And we gain this context through machine learning. The more you use our device powered by AI, the more we can help you in all times of need. Your AI effectively becomes an ever-evolving, personalized form of memory. And we think that's amazing.
[...]
Your AI figures out exactly what you need. And by the way, I love that there's no judgment. I think it's amazing to be able to live freely. Your AI figures out what you need at the speed of thought. A sense that will ever be evolving as technology improves too.
And these examples are just the start. As AI advances, we will see how it will transform nearly every aspect of our lives. [...]
We really believe that we're only beginning to scratch the surface of what's possible. Embed advancements of AI, like in our device that's actually built to disappear and allow experiences to come forward, and we open up entirely new possible ways of how you interact with technology and how you interact with the world around you. More humane, intuitive interactions that are screenless, seamless and sensing. This is so much more than devices just getting smaller or more powerful. This is the possibility of reimagining the human-technology relationship as we know it. And that's what's so exciting.
[...]"

Comment
Thank you for the flowers, but obviously, we do not need to quote more to show more evidence, which proves that we have here just another fraud by already convicted criminals.
In fact, C.S. has created the original and unique

as part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), generative and creative Bionics, Ontologic Logger (OntoLogger), Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and so on.

We also showed Ontoscope versions with all types of form factors and projection technologies several years ago.
See for example the

and the other publications cited therein
The images are still stored on the server with their file permission attributes changed temporarily from 644 to 000, which might be reversed again, because they are collages or cited materials of our discussions of related matters. But the (original) images of the devices can be easily found in the World Wide Web (WWW) or requested from us. Nevertheless, they have been publicized in direct causal connection with our OS and our Os, and also our business units Ontoscope (Os) and iRaiment.

And also keep in mind that the term Ambient Computing is just an obsolete designation for the field of Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) and Internet of Things (IoT), or Pervasive Computing (PC).
For sure, we have referenced Mark Weiser and his group at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC; see the Picture of the Day of the 27th of January 2010). But we cannot tell our fans and readers why that incompetent subject references Walt Mossberg, but only quotes Mark Weiser in this context.
And of course, we have referenced Steve Mann and the fields of Mediated Reality (MedR), including Mixed Reality (MR), and Wearable Computing (WC) as well.

We also know that at least 1 founder of the blacklisted company OpenAI has purchased shares of the company Humane and Humane is using the illegal Large Language Models (LLMs) of OpenAI.
Therefore, do not be fooled by Humane and also OpenAI.

What we also do not know are the following issues:

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

specifically the Lanham (Trademark) Act and our right to exploit (e.g. commercialize (e.g. monetize)) exclusively and get all infringing materials, including patents, trademarks, models, algorithms, databases, source codes, publications, and so on.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein and in the cited publications.

By the way: