Legal loopholes have to be closed, but not opened.
It is a non-partisan no-brainer.

See the note Oracle vs. Google no fair use of the 15th of August 2023.

02.September.2023

09:13 UTC+2
Contracts with SAG-AFTRA are void in Ov

Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Ontoverse (Ov)

Contracts between the Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and the video game industry, including the so-called Interactive Media Agreement, are in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov). Therefore, they have to talk with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and if necessary negotiate said contracts with us once again. Or we will go on strike or even blacklist.

The same holds for the other side, that are the companies in the film, movie, music, television, entertainment, and video game industries.

04.September.2023

07:32 UTC+2
SOPR decided for 75% + 25%

So, so, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, "recursively self-improve", "objective function", "rules", "constraints", "limits of human behaviour", "human-like behavioral constraints", "constitutions", "keep them in a human space", "implied permission set, which has to be written down and controlled", better known as capabilities and capability-based system, etc., obviously they are only focused on our original and unique, copyrighted and prohibited for fair use masterpiece titled Ontologic System and created by C.S.. The infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by known entities have become crystal clear once again.

And for those unteachable individuals, we simply repeat that in general a trick only works one time, but those [...] are trying it another time, which already failed, and in particular in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also known as OntoLand (OL), no other entity will write the constitution than C.S..

The member states of the 5 Eyes will not get the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. without destroying the copyright and then the patent right in the following. But who is interested in rules when waging a war?
They will loose every lawsuit. Our blacklist of individuals and the documentation of their relationships and illegal actions are already quite impressive.
So much about democracy and rule-based law and order once again.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

10:35 UTC+2
Govs, industries refuse to ask for allowance

Governments (govs)

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has crystal clearly discussed the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, the demands of us, inclusive the

• unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• missed follow-up opportunities, including the possibility to trade company shares at the stock markets,

• Ontologics 'R' Us,
• Cloud 3.0 'R' Us,
• Knowledge Graph (KG), Search System (SS) or Search Engine (SE), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), including (voice-based or speech controlled) virtual assistant, Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) or Personal Intelligent Assistant (PIA), transformative, generative, and creative AI, etc. 'R' Us,
• Trusted Artificial Intelligence 'R' Us, Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence 'R' Us, Safety Bionics 'R' Us,
• Evolutionary operating system architecture (EosA) and Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) with all the many integrations, and
• Autonomic Computing (AC),
• OntoSearch and OntoFind, including conversational search system or search engine, agent, softbot, etc.,
• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR),
• Ontoverse (Ov) with metaverse multiverse,
• all related facilities (e.g. data centers, networks, etc.) and other means of control,

for allowing and licensing certain parts of our OS, which are required for core businesses and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) on the subsystems and platforms of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
The governments and industries have rejected them.

We can start immediately after the

It always was, still is, and always will be a no-brainer for those, who have a brain.

We are preparing the lawsuits worldwide and will enforce all of these demands and potentially more in the next 6 months to 6 years anyway.
Do not go on, because it will merely show the judges even more that we our claims are completely right, including that we did everything in total contrast to many other entities being concerned.

See also the Ontonics Further steps of the 21st of August 2023.

Governments are allowed to seek face to face conversation between their leaders and C.S. concerning an acceleration of the matter under a First In First Out (FIFO) protocol.

Not that way, ladies and gentlemen and all inbetween.
Sign, pay, comply, or go away.
Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

05.September.2023

08:16, 09:21, and 17:18 UTC+2
Lobbyism fails more and more

After large industrial companies applied their fraudulent tricks and began to conduct their criminal actions, because they

and therefore are trying to circumvent fair and legal competition, and then found out that said tricks and actions do not work anymore, they turned to total lobbyism.

But politicians are not willing to risk more and already began to play the ball back into their field. But they are also not willing to change the sides.
As we said, we have arranged the situation so that they all also got no time anymore to muddle through. And indeed, the ball is now in the field of the industries, that need legal certainty, which they only get, if

The companies Microsoft, Nvidia, and Co. cannot help them, because they belong to another industry, which has exactly the same problem.
But as one knows from experiences of the past, the law of the strongest, war, and the scorched earth policy then follow.

We can only recall that what they do is called mobbing, interferencing, blocking, blackmailing, mimicking, preying, stealing, and so on, and there is no problem to arrest 1000 Chief Whatsoever Officers (CWOs) and other managers, founders, and other responsible persons in every leading industrial country, to hold them accountable, and to fulfill all of our demands without disrupting anything.

In addition, we are already chasing corrupt or capricious politicians in the U.S.America, European Union, U.K., and many other locations.

Howsoever, we cannot see any problems with the European locations and therefore mobility will always be made in Europe, too, specifically after the decades-old roadblocks will be cleared aside and the right of free passage will be restored again.

06.September.2023

04:44 UTC+2
CSPs, ISPs, WSPs, and Co. still in LaLaLand

Communication Service Provider (CSP)
Internet Service Provider (ISP)
Web Service Provider (WSP)

In relation to the 5th Generation mobile networks or 5th Generation wireless systems (5G) and the 6th Generation mobile networks or 6th Generation wireless systems (6G), and the satellite constellations we would like to give just a reminder once again.

In the following, we list some of the essential and foundational elements and fields, which were created, invented, or improved with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos):

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

In the following, we list some of the essential and foundational elements and fields, which were created, invented, or improved with our Ontologic System (OS)

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

See also the messages

07.September.2023

08:53 and 14:58 UTC+2
SV, SA, et al 'R' Us

*** Work in progress - maybe a thought is missing ***
Silicon Valley (SV)
Silicon Alley (SA)
and at other locations (et al)

We begin with quoting some introducing points:

Do not ask us what is truly creative, innovative, and quality, and also what is really strange, ironic, and frustrating, but we can already tell that this blah blah blah does not work anymore, because everybody knows what made it bad for everyone.

The many similarities, correspondences, and conformities between the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and their plagiarisms and fakes of other entities do not allow any other conclusion than that profound and massive infringements of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation have been done by the plagiarists, counterfeiters, and thieves.
Furthermore, the resulting legal disputes are not about an Application Programming Interface (API), though the related leading decision or landmark ruling requires immediate revision anyway (see also the note Revision of Oracle vs. Google (Java API) required of the 1st of September 2023), but about said AWs and IPs, including our individual visions, creations, expressions of idea, foundations, compilations, selections, compositions, integrations, unifications, fusions, and also designs, architectures, components, applications, and services, as well as their performances and reproductions.
Therefore, we guess that plagiarists, counterfeiters, and thieves, specifically certain illegal monopolies, will not deny the copyright protection of these AWs and IPs at all, but the infringers will attack our legal monopoly on the basis of the fair dealing and fair use doctrine and other doctrines, and related court rulings.

For this reason, we looked at the Section 2 of the Sherman Act in relation to the

which are closely related, and also the

which are better known.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the refusal to deal anti-competitive practice: "Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. A refusal to deal (also known as a group boycott) is forbidden in some countries which have restricted market economies, though the actual acts or situations which may constitute such unacceptable behaviour may vary significantly between jurisdictions."

Comment
We have shown that many partnerships are illegal, because of their conspirations and plots against C.S. and our corporation, including the refusal to deal with us.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject essential facilities doctrine: "The essential facilities doctrine (sometimes also referred to as the essential facility doctrine) is a legal doctrine which describes a particular type of claim of monopolization made under competition laws. In general, it refers to a type of anti-competitive behavior in which a firm with market power uses a "bottleneck" in a market to deny competitors entry into the market. It is closely related to a claim for refusal to deal.
[...]

Overview
Under the essential facilities doctrine, a monopolist found to own "a facility essential to other competitors" is required to provide reasonable use of that facility, unless some aspect of it precludes shared access.[1] The basic elements of a legal claim under this doctrine under United States antitrust law, which a plaintiff is required to show to establish liability, are:

1.) control of the essential facility by a monopolist[;]
2.) a competitor's inability to practically or reasonably duplicate the essential facility[;]
3.) the denial of the use of the facility to a competitor; and
4.) the feasibility of providing the facility to competitors
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004) [(see also the related quote below)], in effect added a fifth element [(number added)]:
5.) absence of regulatory oversight from an agency (the Federal Communications Commission, in that case) with power to compel access.

These elements are difficult for potential plaintiffs to establish for several reasons. It is quite difficult for a plaintiff to demonstrate that a particular facility is "essential" to entry into and/or competition within the relevant market. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the "facility" must be something so indispensable to entry or competition that it would be impossible for smaller firms to compete with the market leader. Likewise, the plaintiff must show that compelling the dominant firm to permit others to use the facility would not interfere with the ability of the dominant firm to serve its own customers.

Development
The first notable case to address the anti-competitive implications of an essential facility was the Supreme Court's judgment in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912).[2] A group of railroads controlling all railway bridges and switching yards into and out of St. Louis prevented competing railway companies from offering transportation to and through that destination. The court held it to be an illegal restraint of trade.[3]

Similar decisions include,

Application of the doctrine
There is controversy about what exactly constitutes an "essential facility". While the doctrine has most frequently been applied to natural monopolies such as utilities and owners of transportation facilities, it has also been applied[specify] in situations involving intellectual property. For example, it is possible for a court to apply the doctrine in a case where one competitor refuses to sell materials protected by copyright or patent to potential competitors."

Comment
We also add that a government has the option of expropriation by passing a related special law and paying a customary compensation, though we do not think that this is possible in relation to a work of art of a living artist, which in addition is even a self-reflection, self-portrait, self-augmentation, and self-extension, and we also showed that no government want to afford such a high compensation in our case.

But obviously,

• core businesses of other entities, which
  • existed before the December 1999 in case of our Evoos and before the October 2006 in case of our OS, and
  • are implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) and executed on the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies,

  so that they do not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of C.S. and the goods and services of our corporation, and

• new OAOS, which do not interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of C.S. and the goods and services of our corporation

so that no refusal to deal exists at all.
Also important to note is the fact that the plagiarisms and fakes related to what we always list in this context do interfere.
See for example the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

We also quote and translate an online encyclopedia about the subject essential facilities doctrine in the German version: "The essential facilities doctrine is a doctrine originating from U.S. competition law that seeks to prevent the abuse of a dominant market position through so-called refusal to deal.
In order to safeguard competition, the owner of facilities or information essential for the provision of certain services or the manufacture of certain products (essential facilities) is forced under certain conditions to grant its competitors rights of use or licenses for precisely these facilities or information in return for an appropriate fee (obligation to contract).
The essential facilities doctrine has now also found its way into European competition law. The requirements differ in the U.S. and the EU, with U.S. law relying more heavily on negotiations between the parties.
In Europe, the common requirement for the application of the doctrine is,

In the course of liberalization within the EU, the doctrine has become very important. In Germany, large networks (energy supply, telecommunications, transport) are particularly affected by this. They are regulated and monitored by the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA), based in Bonn, to prevent competitive abuse.

Literature

Comment
The laws are crystal clear: no interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the commercialization (e.g. monetization) activities of C.S. and the goods and services of our corporation.
And exactly this resulting pressure is leading to freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

Also note that our explanation regarding APIs has been confirmed once again by simply designating them as essential facilities for interoperability. Nevertheless, they are copyrighted and most importantly they are not allowed for reverse engineering, because the result is not something new, which is interoperable with something old, but merely a plagiarism or a fake of the original and unique expression of idea (see once again the note Revision of Oracle vs. Google (Java API) required of the 1st of September 2023).
This shows once again why the revision of the case Oracle vs. Google is required for the reason of competition law as well.

Eventually, innovation and competition does not mean mimicking, copying, modifying, and stealing.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the case Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.: "[...]

Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Ski Co.'s refusal to deal with Highlands, despite the historical success of their joint-venture, could constitute illegal monopolization because it deprived consumers of a superior All-Aspen ticket option,[22] injured Highlands' ability to offer competitive multi-area tickets,[23] and, "perhaps most significant," it lacked any efficiency justification.[24] As the Court recognized in Lorain Journal, a firm's right to choose with whom to do business, or not, is important, but not "unqualified."[25]
[...]
Rejecting all proffered justifications, the Court found that Ski Co. sacrificed short-term profits from selling Highlands lift tickets at retail prices in the hope of long-term anticompetitive gains from injuring their rival. This conduct could support a monopolization claim.[24]

Subsequent case law
As the Supreme Court stated in Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, Aspen is "[t]he leading case imposing § 2 liability for refusal to deal with competitors."[48] Aspen "is at or near the outer boundary of § 2 liability" and represents a "limited exception" to a firm's right to choose with whom to do business that applies when a monopolist is willing to "forsake short-term profits to achieve an anticompetitive end."[48] Subsequent cases have applied and refined Aspen's holding:

Comment
We also add the lawsuit Novell v. Microsoft (2004-2011-2012-2014) in relation to Novell's respectively now Corel's word processing application WordPerfect in the first 32-bit version 7 and Microsoft's operating system Windows 95.
See the note SOPR studied Novell vs. Microsoft once again of the 25th of May 2023.

We also quote online encyclopedia about the case Verizon v. Trinko and Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.: "Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy established antitrust standards without creating new claims that go beyond those standards. It also refused to extend the essential facilities doctrine beyond the facts of the Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. case."]

Nix, no way playing Go with C.S. and our corporation.
All of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation will be restored, restituted, respectively recovered, etc., and much more.

See also the note

08.September.2023

05:26 and 08:11 UTC+2
Clarification
Stable diffusion copyright infringement

We already showed how the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process and PDCA multi-loop, which is also known as the cyclic control loop of the field of Total Quality Management (TQM), is integrated with the field of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) by our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of our Ontologic System (OS), specifically in relation to the plagiarisms and fakes of our OntoBot such as the specific types of ANN called transformer, reformer, general transducer (e.g. perceiver) models, Large Language Models (LLMs), foundation models, foundational models, and other models, which start with an empty text as initial result and then improve the result by conducting a probabilistic search or an ANN-based search, and selecting the next text block (e.g. word or phrase) in an iterative and incremental cyclic process until the result meets a goal.

We also already declared that we are not aware about such a particular approach in prior art in the note Generative and creative Bionics not core business of the 16th of June 2023 and such a general approach in the Clarification of the 28th of July 2023, and also showed that the partial plagiarisms and fakes of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our OntoBot called LLM, chatbot, textrobot, textbot, and so on reproduce some of the original and unique, characteristic functionality of our Evoos and our OntoBot in the Clarification of the 20th of July 2023.

For sure, as we do not claim for the creation or invention of the PDCA process and the field of QM, we also do not claim for the creation or invention of the integrative utilization of the fields of

for the generation and optimization of ANN architectures and models.
But as in the case of the LLM used for text-to-text, or better said text generation, Question Answering (QA), conversation, etc., the stable diffusion technique works differently on the basis of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and for text-to-image than such Bionic approaches like EC for ANN and SC with ANN.
In comparison to LLM used for text-to-text the stable diffusion technique works slightly differently by beginning with a more or less random, but already complete result as initial output, for example an image with the correct size respectively quantity and coloured areas, instead of only a fractional result as initial output, for example an empty text or the first word of a sentence.
This initial result is then also improved in an iterative and incremental PDCA process and PDCA multi-loop, aka. cyclic control loop of TQM, whereby in every iteration the preceding result is transformed into a better result until a result meets a goal respectively the height of quality.

Note that we already have discussed this general iterative and incremental approach and corresponding functionality of our OS several years ago in relation to the processing of big data for further analysis.
Indeed, this general approach and functionality has the advantage that a user does not need an sophisticated computer system or even a supercomputer, but could do such a laborious processing of data or generation of contents with a handheld Ontoscope for example.
Best of all our OSA integrates all in one.

Our claim that the original and unique works of art titled

both created by C.S., were taken as source of inspiration and blueprint for the Stable Dffusion technique is also proven by the facts that it

We can also show that the Stable Dffusion technique reproduces some of the original and unique, characteristic functionality of our OS with its OSA and OntoBot, as we have shown before with the LLMs and other coherent ontologic models of other plagiarisms and fakes.

Therefore, at least the reference of them is missing.

Eventually, the Stable Diffusion technique is also a copyright infringement.

Stability AI, Runway AI, and the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich have already been blacklisted. We demand to remove that illegal Stable Diffusion technique and hand over all infringing material to our SOPR.
The same holds for Midjourney and DeviantArt, because their illegal performances and reproductions of parts of our Evoos and our generative and creative Bionics, also wrongly called generative AI systems, incorporate that illegal Stable Diffusion technique.
The execution in the data centers and the communication over the networks of illegal technologies, goods, and services based on Stable Diffusion will be blocked anyway.

Because it is not the first time that the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich is infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation deliberately alone and in collaboration with privately hold companies, we will demand an injunction order at the court.
The same holds for all other universities, research institutes, etc., that are stealing from, refusing to reference properly, or claiming for the original and unique creations of C.S. and achievements of our corporation. Our track record of convicted luminaries and so-called eminent authorities is already quite impressive.

09.September.2023

13:24 and 30:58 UTC+2
Microsoft escalates situation without gain

The company Microsoft alone and in collaboration with the company Amazon and other entities lets the legal situation escalate without the possibility of making any gain.

One action was to bring a substantial part of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics and our Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), including conversational search system or search engine, agent, softbot, etc., of our Ontologic System (OS) to its operating system Windows in the version 11, which already includes other substantial parts of our Evoos and our OS. In addition, its illegal plagiarism and fake is called Copilot AI Assistant, which we have not allowed, but demanded to take the proper designation OntoBot.

In the past, Microsoft already added a Virtual Machine (VM) to its Windows environment to execute applications, which are implemented for the OS variant Android of the companies Alphabet (Google), Samsung, Huawei, Baidu, HTC, ZTE, Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, and Co..
Another action was to add the Amazon app store for mobile applications to Windows as well. But because Windows is already based on our OS, these mobile applications are Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), which are distributed on the related platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).
This is the next act to ignore our competences and regulations in relation to interoperability, as we have seen and documented before in relation to

And that both companies are not providing freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good and thus for the customers is also proven once again, because we are blocked from the public, while they are performing and reproducing essential parts of our Evoos and our OS without allowance for growing their illegal monopolies and walled gardens, so that

as both has to be for compliance with

The amount of evidences collected in more than 17 years is tremendous, if not to say overwhelming, and the causal links to our original and unique works of art are obvious and undeniable, as is the fact that these works of art are personal and were absolutely unforeseeable and unexpected for a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA), the latter is also the reason why they were even unable to steal our Evoos and our OS completely, and therefore the legal situation is crystal clear and does not need further elaborations and explanations.
Honestly, we have absolutely no more understanding for this brainless nonsense and we are 100 percent sure that many others on the good side will not only agree with us, but will also take action. Neither Microsoft or Amazon alone or in collaboration, nor any other company, entity, or union of them will get the control over our AWs and IPs either legally by contract or illegally by stealing.
We only add that we have the impression that even companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Meta (Facebook), and Co. do not know anymore, where their ships are sailing to. But we do know, either into our harbour or into the abyss. :)

See also the note SV, SA, et al 'R' Us of the 7th of September 2023.

By the way:

11.September.2023

21:28 UTC+2
Do not be fooled by banks

Virtually everything that certain companies want to do with supercomputers and the field of Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS or AgentBS) and Agent-Oriented Programming (AOP), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Intelligent Agent System (IAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), Computational Linguistics (CL), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Natural Language Understanding (NLU), Natural Multimodal Processing (NMP) and Natural Multimodal Understanding (NMU), Swarm Computing (SC), Artificial Life (AL), etc.), specifically the truly interesting technologies, goods, and services, is in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

A supercomputer alone does not give a single entitiy an edge at all, because it is an asymmetric advantage, which only lasts 6 to 8 months until the next supercomputer starts its operation, and all other large companies already have a supercomputer or have access to one.

About the brute force approach on the basis of ML, ANN, and SC we do not need to discuss anymore, because it is about quantity respectively probabilistics, statistics, fantasy, hallucination, etc., but not about quality respectively validation and verification, transparency, rationality, trust, etc..

Another point is the demand for interoperability of technologies (e.g. systems, platforms), goods (e.g. applications), and services, specifically in the fields of SoftWare (SW) and also Autonomous System (AS) and Robotic System (RS).

The claim, or better said serious criminal lie of the bank Morgan Stanley and other entities that a single company would have an advantage is true in the case of our corporation, but not in the case of for example an Electric Vehicle (EV) manufacturer.
Indeed, the situation could be compared with charging stations for electric vehicles and a network of them, which in this case of the fields of supercomputer system, modern operating system (os), Distributed System (DS), Bionics, etc. is our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), and also Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively are our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), which again belong to our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system and Ontologic System, both created by C.S..
Exactly the same holds for the comparison of what is wrongly called app stores, Web Services (WS) platforms, Grid Computing (GC) platforms, and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) platforms by others, and also called Cloud 2.0 and Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding.

In fact, member states of the Europe Union want to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS and sign the set of legal documents of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including contracts and agreements, pay damage compensations, and so on, the P.R.China has an interest in a win-win as well, the South Korea and the U.K. are also understanding the artistical, social, societal, legal, technological and economical dimensions and the overall situation, and the U.S.America and the other member states of the 5 Eyes have no other chance than to follow. It is that simple. :)

And once they have begun to sign, the value of some totally overrated companies will be balanced respectively grounded.

So do not be fooled by fraudulent and serious criminal banks and media companies, which are illegally promoting not so good companies for their very own interests, specifically to

14.September.2023

05:37, 14:27, and 15:36 UTC+2
SV, SA, et al need our SOPR

Silicon Valley (SV)
Silicon Alley (SA)
and at other locations (et al)
Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

But our SOPR does not need SV, SA, et al at all, because SV, SA, et al 'R' Us (see the note of the 7th of September 2023). In fact, we are at least 10 years ahead, and we are moving as well, and from the point of philosophy, moral, ethics, truth, etc. they will never reach us.
See also the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 7th of August 2023.

SV, SA, et al do not and will not get things done, because literally spoken it is not their business.
And all mistakes, that can be done, have been done by industries and governments.

What was that for a ... show? A meeting for monopolists and opportunists promoting their hypocrisies, conducting illegal appropriation by discussing the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., and so on.
We also note that they are even unable to regulate autonomous vehicles, including self-driving cars, including robotaxis, etc., since more than a decade.

Why that secrecy?
"I do not understand why the press has been barred from this meeting", senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, U.S.America.
"This is the biggest gathering of monopolists since the Gilded Age, and I'm disappointed it isn't happening in public and not in a real hearing", senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, U.S.America.

And where does a regulation leads to in the end? Exactly, where we already were in the past with our Ontologic System (OS) and are now with our SOPR.
In fact, we compare it with the flight systems of aircrafts and spacecrafts, specifically rockets, military jets, and airliners, which comprise redundant systems, validated and verified HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW), and aviation authorities.
Therefore, we have our OS, our SOPR, and our joint ventures with federal entities, and because we did everything right, in fact we were creative and inventive, and also are telling the truth and are law-abiding in total contrast to those alleged AI pioneers, we do not support a moratorium, or any other restriction of C.S. and our corporation, but demand once again to sign, pay, comply.
The attempt to place us on the same playing field is just another outrageous insult.

See also the notes

14:27 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

Telegraph road, Dire Straits, Love Over Gold album, 20th of September 1982, single live version, 1984

A long time ago came a man on a track
Walking thirty miles with a sack on his back
And he put down his load
Where he thought it was the best
He made a home in the wilderness
He built a cabin and a winter store
And he plowed up the ground by the cold lake shore
And the other travelers came walking down the track
And they never went further, no
They never went back

Then came the churches, then came the schools
Then came the lawyers, and then came the rules
Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads
And the dirty old track was the telegraph road

Then came the mines, then came the ore
Then there was the hard times, then there was a war
Telegraph sang a song about the world outside
Telegraph road got so deep and so wide
Like a rolling river

And my radio says tonight it's gonna freeze
People driving home from the factories
There's six lanes of traffic
Three lanes moving slow

I used to like to go to work, but they shut it down
I've got a right to go to work, but there's no work here to be found
Yes, and they say we're gonna have to pay what's owed
We're gonna have to reap
From some seed that's been sowed

And the birds up on the wires and the telegraph poles
They can always fly away from this rain and this cold
You can hear them singing out their telegraph code
All the way down the telegraph road

You know, I'd sooner forget
But I remember those nights
When life was just a bet on a race
Between the lights
You had your head on my shoulder
You had your hand in my hair
Now you act a little colder
Like you don't seem to care

But believe in me, baby, and I'll take you away
From out of this darkness and into the day
From these rivers of headlights, these rivers of rain
From the anger that lives on the streets with these names
Cause I've run every red light on memory lane
I've seen desperation explode into flames
And I don't want to see it again
From all of these signs saying, "sorry, but we're closed"
All the way
Down the telegraph road

And finally, data mining, big data, Bionics, Caliber/Calibre, and Ontoverse (Ov), bet on a race, regulation, job loss, and war again, and again, and again.

By the way: "US Highway 24 is a United States Numbered Highway that runs from Minturn, Colorado, to Independence Township, Michigan. In Michigan, it is also known as Telegraph Road and runs for 79.828 miles (128.471 km) [...]"

15:48 UTC+2
Arm evaluation too high, but not as Nvidia

The evaluation of the company Arm is too high by around 10 to 15%, which is proven by a look at its revenue, but nevertheless shows how ridiculous the evaluation of the company Nvidia truly is.

17.September.2023

01:04 and 12:49 UTC+2
Adding no more fuel to the fire is one of the rules

The P.R:Chinese government wanted rules at first, so we communicated crystal clear terms and conditions, which also constitute the foundation for a win-win scenario or policy.

Win-win means respectively requires

• 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),

and

as has also been discussed in the last years.

Therefore, our SOPR would like to give the reminder that no alternative exists for the only legal, mandatory, and common infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

which are required for everything, specifically for

and cannot be provided by any other entity.
Obviously, U.S.American, European, and P.R.Chinese entities are unable to do this.

In this relation, we would like to give the reminder that adding no more fuel to the fire is one of the rules and also means the talk with us and the omission of any act the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation are ignored, undermined, circumvented, or violated, like for example no courting of foreign entities, e.g. Elon Musk, who is not only a threat to the national security of the U.S.America, but also the P.R.China by the way, illegal cooperation with other companies, e.g. Mastercard and Visa instead of our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) with its Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay) and Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC), and other governments, e.g. U.S.American Department of the Treasury (USDT) and Yellen instead of our SOPR and our OntoBank with its Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and so on.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

18.September.2023

14:00 UTC+2
SOPR considering 80% + 20%

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)

14:07 and 16:28 UTC+2
SOPR reminds about exclusive ON, OW, OV

Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)
Ontologic Net (ON)
Ontologic Web (OW)
Ontologic uniVerse (OV)

Our SOPR would like to point out that our ON, OW, and OV, including what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, are part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and includes the provision of related Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic System Components (OSC), including our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics.

Therefore, direct contracts between European entities, but also U.S.American, P.R.Chinese, and other entities worldwide and Telecommunication Service Providers (TSPs), Web Service Providers (WSPs), Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), etc. in relation to these infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies will be accepted and existing contracts are void anyway due to the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
If at all, then the continuation of an existing contract will be done in the legal framework of the Main Contract Model (MCM) of our SOPR.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

Please also note that the share of the overall revenue generated with our works of art, or being more precise with an OAOS, only applies

15:16 and 16:24 UTC+2
Turkey has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

Confidence (wo)men, fraudsters, and criminals cannot help any government in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., neither in the U.S.America, the P.R.China, the French R., South Korea, Israel, Turkey, and so on.
Governments have to talks with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and simply continuing with ignoring, undermining, circumventing, or violating the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation does not provide any benefit and improvement of the own position.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

19.September.2023

22:10 UTC+2
There is only one OS and Ov
maybe Investigations: Multimedia, and AI and KM

Ontologic System (OS)
Ontoverse (Ov)

As not expected otherwise, certain entities refusing to give up their walled gardens despite they are based on the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., performed and reproduced without allowance and license, and parts of our corporation, or simply said illegal.

We quote a report, which is about a partial variant of our Ontologic System (OS): "[...]
[...] a next-generation mobile operating system.
[...]
Autocorrect is also getting a comprehensive update, Apple said, with a transformer language model - or "a state-of-the-art on-device machine learning language model for word prediction," according to the company.
[...]
Apple's new Journal app, which aims to help users reflect and practice gratitude through the daily practice of journaling, will also be available in a software update later this year.
[...]"]

Comment
For sure, age is relative, but we do not think that our original and unique works of art titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its age of 25 years and Ontologic System (OS) with its age of 17 years are very young. Howsoever, they are now literally spoken the state of the art.

Also note that it does not matter for what one or more of the basic properties of our OS are utilized, specifically in this case of a Language Model (LM) based on an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) or Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)).

See the webpages

• Feature-List #1 of the 22nd of April 2008 for the list point
  • Built-in spell checker,
• Feature-List #2 of the 24th of April 2008 for the list point
  • Proactive user support, that predicts the future by autonomous agent systems (see OntoBot),
• Feature-List #5 of the 11th of July 2013 for the list point
  • Model-based simulation of upgrades to predict failures before affecting the real system,
    • in particular Model-based simulation of upgrades of an empty line to a complete text to predict failures in texting, writing, composing, programming, messaging, etc. before affecting the real system of publication, compiling, implementation, etc. and
    • in general Model-based [anything] to predict [anything] before [doing anything]

of the website of our Ontologic System OntoLinux to find the general model-based and predictive properties, capabilities, and functionalities of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot).

See the

See the webpage

of the website of the learning environment Sugar.

See the messages

• One Laptop per Child (OLPC), which uses the learning environment Sugar,

and

of the website of OntomaX and also note that the field of life logging has also been integrated by our Evoos through the integration of the field of Cybernetics and the creation of the field of Humanistic Computing (HC) and therefore by our OS as well.

See the projects

in the Innovation Pipeline of Ontonics to find Sugar, Grid Computing (GC), Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), and much more.

We quote a report, which is about our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component with its generative and creative Bionics: "Google's Bard artificial intelligence chatbot is evolving.
The company on Tuesday announced a series of updates to Bard that will give the chatbot access to Google's full suite of tools - including YouTube, Google Drive, Google Flights and others - to assist users in a wider variety of tasks. [...]
The connections to Google's other services are just some of the improvements to Bard coming Tuesday. Other updates include the ability to communicate with the chatbot in multiple languages, new fact-checking capabilities and a broad update to the large language model that the tool is built on.
[...]
"These services in conjunction with one another are very, very powerful," [the] general manager for Google Assistant and Bard, told [...] ahead of the launch.
Previously, Bard had been able to help with tasks like writing essay drafts or planning [an activity] based on Google's large language model, an AI algorithm trained on vast troves of data. But now, Bard will draw on information from Google's various other services, too. With the new extensions, Bard will now pull information from YouTube, Google Maps, Flights and Hotels by default.
[...]
Users can also opt in to link their Gmail, Docs and Google Drive to Bard so the tool can help them analyze and manage their personal information. [...]
[...]
"This is the first step in a fundamentally new capability for Bard - the ability to talk to other apps and services to provide more helpful responses," Google said of the extensions tool. It added that, "this is a very young area of AI," that it will continue to improve based on user feedback.
[...]"

Comment
For sure, age is relative, but we do not think that our original and unique works of art Evoos with its age of 25 years and OS with its age of 17 years are very young. Howsoever, they are now literally spoken the state of the art.

See the webpages

• Feature-List #2 of the 24th of April 2008 for the list points
  • World wide first-of-its-kind operating system, that sets and establishes the new standards Web 3.0, Web 4.0, and Web 5.0 (every user gets an id, that starts with onto#)
  • Personal World Wide Web-based infrastructure, network, and virtual drive, that supports the user centric migration 'Max-Mig', synchronization 'Max-Sync' of applications and data, and communication 'Max-Com', which are basic functionalities of what is called the Cloud 2.0 by us only for better understanding,

of the website of our Ontologic System OntoLinux.

See the projects

in the Innovation Pipeline of Ontonics.

See also the

Obviously, both companies have copied something in relation to what we have publicized and explained more than 11 years ago, as we have observed with the company Microsoft in the fields of education and learning environment as well in the last weeks, which shows that they are continuing with the

methodically and systematically.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

It should now be more than obvious for the public that the

though we have to wait and see if the U.S.American supreme court moves the goalposts once again and declares that the

20.September.2023

11:18 UTC+2
F.R. has to comply with ToS

French Republic (F.R.)
Terms of Service (ToS)

Elon Musk cannot help any government in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., neither in the U.S.America, the P.R.China, the F.R., South Korea, Israel, Turkey, and so on.
Governments have to talks with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and simply continuing with ignoring, undermining, circumventing, or violating the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation does not provide any benefit and improvement of the own position.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

11:19 UTC+2
South Korea has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

Elon Musk cannot help any government in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., neither in the U.S.America, the P.R.China, the F.R., South Korea, Israel, Turkey, and so on.
Governments have to talks with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and simply continuing with ignoring, undermining, circumventing, or violating the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation does not provide any benefit and improvement of the own position.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

13:44 and 14:23 UTC+2
SOPR will not tolerate caps of users, revenues, etc.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not tolerate a

• Social and Societal System (SoSoS or S³) and
• Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) with its
  • Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) with its
    • Ontologic Payment System (OPS or OntoPay),
    • Ontologic Payment Processing System (OPPS),
    • Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange), and
    • Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC),

in relation to the exclusive performance and monetization of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
If such an intolerable action will happen, then our SOPR will take decisive measure to enforce all of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation worldwide. For example, our SOPR will cap the amount of Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), companies, or staff members of one or more companies being allowed by entities accordingly.

For example, on the 26th of March 2021, the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) defined a standard operating procedure for third-party payment providers on 30% market capitalization in relation to the national instant money transfer system, or better said instant payment system called Unified Payments Interface (UPI) of the country India.
Furthermore, a regulator in India has capped a so-called in-app pay service of a social media platform to only 100 million people.
If the NPCI or an Indian regulator do so in relation to our OntoBank, then our SOPR will cap the amount of staff members of all Indian companies being allowed to use our Ontologic System (OS) to 100 million people beginning with the companies, which have the largest market capitalization. In addition, our SOPR will also add licensing and import respectively export restrictions for Ontoscope (Os) variants.

Another example, if Indian regulators even refuse to use our instant payment system or to integrate its Unified Payments Interface (UPI) with our Ontologic Bank Financial Information and Communications (OBFIC), so to say the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications of the Next Generation (SWIFT NG) and the only legal successor of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) and comparables by the way, then our SOPR will add 300% on all money transfers, which are going into and out of India and take other decisive measures to convince our friends in India that it is always better to collaborate with us and to comply with the

:)

For sure, the member states of the European Union (EU) and several other countries have to adapt or even ditch related cross border agreements for the international use of national instant payment systems in their domestic markets to comply with the

By the way:

and the other publications cited therein.

18:00 and 23:39 UTC+2
Shareholders of DFKI will be handled like SV, SA, et al

We handle the shareholders of the Deutsches Forschungsinstitute für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) exactly like we handle companies in Silicon Valley (SV), on Silicon Alley (SA), and at other locations (et al).
Because a signature at gunpoint cannot lead to a valid conveyance of someone's right and property, but constitute a deprivation of right and a robbery of property, this handling means

due to the reason that they were already rejected by most if not all major violating entities, but

• unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• missed follow-up opportunities, including the possibility to trade company shares at the stock markets,

are due.

23:46 and 26:16 UTC+2
BMW still in LaLaLand

This very ugly episode with the company Bayerische Motorenwerke (BMW) will also soon come to an end. Even the company Amazon with its partial OntoBot variant of a dialog-oriented or conversational, emotional Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) can no longer help. It is all over, just like Amazon with Audi and Lamborghini, Microsoft with Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia with Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia with Siemens and so on. For certain. :)
See also the note SOPR reminds about exclusive ON, OW, OV of the 18th of September 2023.

Either they sign, pay, comply, or close their booths and go away.

Auch diese sehr hässliche Episode mit dem Unternehmen Bayerische Motorenwerke (BMW) wird bald ein Ende haben. Da kann auch das Unternehmen Amazon mit seiner partiellen OntoBot variante eines dialogorientierten, gesprächigen, emotionalen Intelligenten Persänlichen Assistenten (IPA) nicht mehr helfen. Das ist alles vorbei genause wie Amazon mit Audi→Lamborghini, Microsoft mit Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia mit Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia mit Siemens und so weiter. Ganz sicher. :)
Siehe auch die Notiz SOPR reminds about exclusive ON, OW, OV vom 18. September 2023.

Entweder sie unterschreiben, bezahlen, halten ein oder machen ihre Bude zu und gehen weg.

21.September.2023

00:01, 00:40, and 07:30 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

We quote a report, which is about our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) component with its generative and creative Bionics publicized in large parts on the 23rd of May 2023 and today again: "[...]
[Amazon's] Alexa launched nearly a decade ago and, along with Apple's Siri, Microsoft's Cortana, [Google's Assistant, Samsung's Bixby,] and other voice assistants, were promised to change the way people interacted with technology. But the viral success of [another illegal partial plagiarism of our Evoos and our generative and creative Bionics] has arguably accomplished some of those goals faster and across a wider range of everyday products.
[...]
Still, he emphasized innovation around Alexa has not stalled. "We're not done and won't be done until [the OntoBot variant] Alexa is as good or better than the 'Star Trek' computer," Limp said. "And to be able to do that, it has to be conversational. It has to know all. It has to be the true source of knowledge for everything.""

Comment
As we have always said and proven: We keep promises.
And much more: Our absolutely original and unique, unforeseeable and unexpected, personal, magic, copyrighted, and prohibited for fair use and democratization OntoBot is even better than the computer of the "Star Trek" saga.

But we have to correct the statement about the pace of the accomplishment, because there was no such difference between the

due to the simple facts that they are all our OntoBot and that said (voice-based) virtual assistants are being updated by the integration of our coherent ontologic model and our conversational, emotional Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), and also Ontologic Portal (OntoPortal).

And we add that we have already shown that the whole technological development was not an ordinary technological progress, but solely based on the original and unique masterpieces titled Evoos and OS, created by C.S., exclusively managed and exploited (e.g. commercialized (e.g. monetized)) by our by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S., and taken as source of inspiration and blueprint by all these plagiarists.

Indeed, because Amazon already related the computer of the Star Trek saga to Alexa and does so once again with the "robotic Alexa" following, or correctly said compying and mimicking us with our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), we have a seamless development or evolution, which shows once again that it was always our OntoBot.

See also the notes

For sure, this latest fraudulent and even serious criminal act is the total capitulation in Silicon Valley (SV), on Silicon Alley (SA), and at other locations (et al), because they can do nothing else anymore than ignoring and violating the

Hopefully, they have already begun to tell their shareholders about the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, including the 75% (the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation) + 25% (the other company) regulation. It is better than 100% + 0%, nothing, nada, nix and therefore a no-brainer. :)

Sign, pay, comply.
Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

07:30 UTC+2
SOPR decided to blacklist illegal OntoBot

Ontologic roBot (OntoBot)

Our SOPR will not give the allowance and license for (historical order)

• Information Retrieval (IR) System (IRS), including Information Filtering (IF) System (IFS), including Recommendation System or Recommender System (RecS), and also Search System (SS) or Search Engine (SE), and Question Answering (QA) System (QAS),
• Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR), including Graph-Based Knowledge Base (GBKB) or Knowledge Graph (KG),
• speech recognition and speech synthesis,
• voice user interface,
• Dialog System (DS or DiaS), including Dialogue Management System (DMS),
• Conversational System (CS or ConS), including Conversational Agent System (CAS or ConAS),
• Multimodal System (MS or MMS), including Multimodal User Interface (MUI),
• chatbot,
• Intelligent Agent System (IAS), including (voice-based or speech controlled) virtual assistant, Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA),
• Robotic System (RS),
• and so on.

See also the notes

07:30 UTC+2
SOPR decided to blacklist illegal ON, OW, and OV

Ontologic Net (ON)
Ontologic Web (OW)
Ontologic uniVerse (OV)

Our SOPR will not give the allowance and license for (lexicographical order)

• ON,
• OW, and
• OV.

See also the notes

09:08 UTC+2
Huawei has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

As in the case of the

the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation will not continue, as seen before with the various variants of our Ontoscope (Os) with or without arms, legs, fins, wheels, wings, and so on, like for example Android Smartphone, Apple iPhone, connected car, smartcar, autonoumous vehicle, etc., and with our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), including what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding, for all of which the

• unpaid royalties for unauthorized performances and reproductions,
• obmitted referencing respectively citation with attribution, and
• missed follow-up opportunities, including the possibility to trade company shares at the stock markets,

are due.

In this relation, our SOPR would like to give the reminder that no other option for the world exists than the only legal, mandatory, and common infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential

which are required for everything, specifically for

and cannot be provided by any other entity.
Obviously, U.S.American, European, and P.R.Chinese entities are unable to do this.

See also the note

and the other publications cited therein.

02:41, 07:33, and 17:31 UTC+1
50% rejected and 50% returned for revision

In relation to a class action lawsuit against an illegal variant of our Evoos and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with its generative and creative Bionics, a court has

The reasons and deficiencies have already been explained by us, specifically that a plaintiff must show that her, his, or their original work of art has been reproduced, but not only the style of writing, the way of narrating, or the genre, etc. (see also the section about art forgery below), and in case that has been established that the plagiarism is interfering with, and also obstructing, undermining, and harming the monetization of the original work of art, which has to be quantified by showing factual numbers.

But we also already explained that using training our generative and creative Bionics is fair use by us and only we

which implies that all the other entities are the wrong defendants.

Either way,

we will always win.

We also note that publicating new works of art under wrong names is not considered a copyright infringement, but art forgery.

We quote an "online encyclopedia about the subject art forgery: "Art forgery, which "is the creation and sale of works of art which are falsely credited to other, usually more famous artists. [...]
This type of fraud is meant to mislead by creating a false provenance, or origin, of the object in order to enhance its value or prestige at the expense of the buyer. As a legal offense, it is not just the act of imitating a famous artist's key characteristics in a piece of art, but the deliberate financial intent by the forger.[1]".

Comment
It is a legal problem for the buyer, purchaser, customer, or consumer.

Howsoever, our SOPR still offers our artistic win-win policy and recommends to accept it, though we will not wait forever, as usual, because no answer is considered an answer.

22.September.2023

04:22 UTC+2
Cisco has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

In general, we see the takeover of the company Splunk by the company Cisco critical, but leave the question about the requirement of an intervention to the market regulators.

In particular, the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. do belong neither to the core business nor to the area of control of the company Cisco and its subsidiaries, including the company Splunk, which had as core business a search engine with a web-style interface in 2007.
Therefore, our SOPR would like to give the reminder that according to the

Cisco has to

• unrestricted access to the raw signals and data, and
• coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including ontologies, Foundational Models (FMs) (e.g. Foundation Models (FMs)), Capability and Operational Models (COMs) (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) (e.g. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Language Model (LM) (ANNLM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM))), etc.),

(Hint 1: There is no fair use and no Application Programming Interface (API), but Lanham and Sherman in Aspen Skiing in relation to said AWs and IPs.) and

as other companies have to do as well (Hint 2: Do not underestimate this requirement from the point of view of market regulation.)

And what will happen with the Cisco Cloud and the Splunk Cloud, as well as with Splunk's visibility to the Amazon Web Services Cloud 3.0 does not need further discussion anymore.

We are all smart. But C.S. and our corporation were smarter first. Therefore, there will be no continuation or repetition of the Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), Grid Computing (GC), and Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) mess.

04:30 UTC+2
Alphabet (Google) has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

The original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. do belong neither to the core business nor to the area of control of the company Alphabet (Google) and will not belong to them, at least as long it is not a subsidiary of our corporation. (Hint 1: There is no fair use and no Application Programming Interface (API), but Lanham and Sherman in Aspen Skiing in relation to said AWs and IPs.)
Therefore, our SOPR would like to give the reminder that according to the

Alphabet (Google) has to

• unrestricted access to the raw signals and data, and
• coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.),

as other companies have to do as well, like for example the companies Adobe and Nvidia have to do as well (Hint 2: Do not underestimate this requirement from the point of view of market regulation.)

In the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) there is no carte blanche, à la carte all you can eat, or free lunch buffet, and no put as much as possible into the pockets for taking home and consumption behind the own walls of the own garden.

Our fans and readers can also see how our SOPR guarantees freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the public good.

See for example the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

06:02 UTC+2
Hyundai Motor has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

The original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. do belong neither to the core business nor to the area of control of the company Hyundai Motor and its subsidiaries, including the company Boston Dynamics, which had as core business leg-based robots.
Therefore, our SOPR would like to give the reminder that according to the

Hyundai Motor has to

• unrestricted access to the raw signals and data, and
• coherent ontologic model, including ontology, and other foundation model, foundational model, capability and operational model (e.g. Bionic Model (BM), Artificial Intelligence Model (AIM), Machine Learning Model (MLM), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.),

(Hint 1: There is no fair use and no Application Programming Interface (API), but Lanham and Sherman in Aspen Skiing in relation to said AWs and IPs.) and

as other companies have to do as well (Hint 2: Do not underestimate this requirement from the point of view of market regulation.)

23.September.2023

10:25 and 21:18 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We are preparing to file complaints at the U.S.American Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), etc. regarding

and will do so in Europe and at other locations.

We also have to expand the list of responsible persons from 1000 to 3000, because we already have around 500 founders, former and actual Chief X Officers, vice presidents, and 1st line of managers listed.

We have chased them and we have catched them.
Everybody has been warned multiple times.
This is no announcement, but is now happening independently of the allowance, licensing, and royalty collection procedure of our SOPR.

We highly recommend all federal authorities to immediately take action for avoiding further escalations.
The laws are already the compromise and the contract. No discussions and negotiations are required.

We are also weighing the options for the monetization of our second unpublished catalogue, which includes more original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) created by C.S., and was compiled since 2014 to 2021, as could be seen on this website of OntomaX. By the way: The first catalogue is the Innovation Pipeline of Ontonics and we think the second catalogue is even better and more matured.
What we can tell so far is that we are not convinced anymore that our initial plan A is truly favourable, specifically due to a lack of wisdom, moral, ethics, respect, and rule of law of governments, which are definitely not in the position to treat us with such ignorance and disrespect, and therefore our plan B prepared over the last years for the case that certain entities refuse to sign, pay, comply might be much more reasonable.
Everybody has been warned multiple times.

All of our demands will be fulfilled in the next months, including the restitution, restoration, recovery, and transfer.

75% + 25%, ToS with LM, x% OAOS, y% HW

10:50 UTC+2
SOPR considering to blacklist customers of OpenAI

25.September.2023

17:15 and 20:54 UTC+2
Amazon escalates situation without gain

The company Amazon alone and in collaboration with other companies and other entities lets the legal situation escalate without the possibility of making any gain.

Howsoever, the company Amazon made a lot of big mistakes in more than the last decade, which now come like a boomerang.
And it took the bait once again. :D Its latest illegal action in relation to another conspiracy and plot, and also blackmailing is an act of desperation and helplessness due to its inability to compete in the market in a truly legal way. Those dudes are so simple minded, or better said anti-social, bloody stupid, and arrogant.

We quote a report about the update of a partial plagiarism of our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) by another partial plagiarism of it, which is a partial plagiarism of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
Amazon claimed the investment could help improve customer experiences.
[...]
As well as online retail, Amazon is a major provider of so-called cloud computing services. In simple terms it rents out computing power - housed in huge warehouses full of computers called data centres - to other firms to help store or process their data.
The collaboration means Anthropic will be able to draw on this huge computing power.
In turn, Amazon developers will be able to use Claude 2, the latest version of Anthropic's foundation AI model, to create new applications for its customers and enhance existing ones.
Microsoft, which operates a cloud computing business called Azure, has a similar arrangement with OpenAI.
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that there is no race for the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation at all.

The obviously fabricated report also shows that they want to get away by drawing the red line respectively making the separation between the

specifically the

But besides the essential and foundational elements and fields, which were created, invented, or improved with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), including

• Language Model (LM),
• Domain-Specific Language (DSL) Model (DSLM),
• Agent Communication Language (ACL) Model (ACLM), and
• Controlled Natural Language (CNL) Model (CNLM),

(see for example the note CSPs, ISPs, WSPs, and Co. still in LaLaLand of the 6th of September 2023, we have also integrated the field of

and created the fields of

with the creation of our Ontologic System (OS) and its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), as shown multiple times on this website of OntomaX.

Also note that Amazon is applying the same patterns of strategy and argumentation again and again, including the claim to provide a benefit for the public. We agree with everything related to the customers, but also point out that its errors of thinking and strategy are that the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR is the only legal provider of said services of what is called Cloud 3.0 by us only for better understanding and we already opened our Evoos and our OS for providing this benefit for the public in addition to interoperability as part of our exclusive commercialization (e.g. monetization). Or simply said, they all have to use our infrastructures, including our MfE, for their core businesses and other things realized as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
And we do it with the related parts of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) respectively on our platforms of what is called Cloud 3.0 and in our data centers, because they have to transfer all infringing materials to us.

And we can also see how they are supported by governments and other entities.

See also the notes

In the meantime, it has become obvious that Amazon is attacking the Marketplace for Everything (MfE) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies to protect its core business, walled garden, and illegal monopoly. It is always the same pattern of fraud. :þ
That provides a never ending penalty kick for market regulators worldwide and confirms other illegal actions of Amazon, for example to warn its shareholders and potential investors of its companies in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and the many infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, as required by laws.

See also the Ontonics Further step of the 23rd of September 2023.

It has also become obvious, that companies like Amazon want to establish a level playing field and level off that playing field. But we already discussed the matter and every interested entity does already know that we do not need to compete for the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. at all, but are allowed to exploit them exclusively worldwide.

For sure, we do know that companies like Amazon want to provoke and embroil us in very expensive, time-consuming, bogus lawsuits at the courts and drawn-out disputes. But we already explained that a legal process will not go through all instance at all, because all relevant leading decisions or landmark rulings have been made. If at all it will go to one instance higher and the next higher instance will directly reject any appeal.
Do not be fooled by those manoeuvres, which should only confuse the public. Eventually, companies like Amazon will have to accept and respect the moral rights, the copyrights, and all other rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. No other way exists in a rule-based law and order environment. They have to sign, pay, comply. :)

75% + 25%, ToS with LM, x% OAOS, y% HW

17:29 UTC+2
SOPR considering to blacklist customers of Anthropic

22:08 UTC+2
More evidence ChatGPT and Co. are fraud

Our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) is based on the fields of

and therefore also on the fields of

Our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) showed this even more and added even more.

Moreover, they have now also integrated the fields of

in addition to the fields of

and also essential parts of our

Extra funny: They have created nothing new, but are only copying and have fallen in their self-created brute force trap, because they are so bloody stupid that they do not know at all what they are stealing, as we always knew and are still enjoying to watch.

By the way:

26.September.2023

16:27 UTC+2
Case U.S.A. et al. vs. Google is in public interest

United States of America (U.S.A.)

We quote a report about the legal case U.S.America et al. vs. Google: "[...]
The secrecy has angered legal and antitrust experts. In addition, Digital Context Next, a trade group and Google critic that represents the business interests of media companies including The Times, filed a court motion to make testimony from witnesses public and to provide access to trial exhibits and emails. The judge, Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has not responded to the motion, according to the trade group's head, Jason Kint.
Randal C. Picker, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said in an interview that the public should be able to monitor and scrutinize arguments from the case in real time, to hold the parties accountable.
"The public should be looking at this - staring at Google and staring at [the U.S.American Department of Justice (]D.O.J.[)]," he said. "These are both very powerful actors here."
But opening up the trial appears unlikely. Judge Mehta said in a pretrial hearing last month that he was not a businessperson and indicated that he was amenable to companies' arguments that they needed to protect the details of their businesses.
"I am not anyone that understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do," Judge Mehta said. "And so I take seriously when companies are telling me that if this gets disclosed, it's going to cause competitive harm.
[...]
Matt Stoller, the research director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an antimonopoly think tank, said the secrecy "undercuts the legitimacy of our legal system." His group tried and failed to persuade the court to open a teleconference line for the trial.
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University who worked on antitrust policies in the Biden administration and who has contributed opinion essays to The Times, said government lawyers sometimes agreed to seal information to speed a case along.
"These things are warfare," he said. "You want to get the information, and you don't internalize the cost to the public or reporters."
But Mr. Wu noted that there was an inherent irony in Google's push to limit disclosure.
"It's ironic for a company to suck up all our information and know everything about us and we can't know a damn thing about them," he said. "We deserve a better look at them.""

Comment
In general, the right of public access is absolute, if there is a public interest, which doubtlessly and definitely is given in this legal case. In fact, such legal processes at the courts have always been highly revealing and very informative for the public and the public must know how such large companies and this industry work.
In addition, it constitutes another obstruction of the press, the lawmakers, and the federal authorities concerned.
Moreover, other entities must have the right to also act, if evidences emerge of illegal or even serious criminal actions in relation to them. Courts are not allowed to become or even be complicit.
Therefore, all materials have to be publicized immediately. That is how an open and modern society, a democracy, and a constitutional state work.

Why this secrecy again? We already had this recently in relation to the regulation of Bionics.
We always thought that the U.S.America is not the P.R.China or another country, but have to learn more and more that we are understanding the industry but not the country.

They will not get away with that legal trick in our case, because we will legally demand and enforce the disclosure and presentation of the same materials and much more in our lawsuits. :þ
In fact, even without any disclosure of details at this time, we already catched another very interesting bad actor with John G., who also failed in the past until infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. :)

Honestly, we also do wonder if a judge is competent to lead a litigation without understanding an industy. Other and we have already discussed this point several times in general.

21:28 UTC+2
OFinS will have tools for FIU

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)
Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)

Lawmakers must have legal laws in place for their national FIUs, which allow them to use the tools of our OFinS with its Ontologic Bank (OntoBank).
Needless to say, national sovereignty and security, as well as personal data security and privacy are essential requirements, which the related subsystems and platforms of the infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies do apply by design.

27.September.2023

07:24 UTC+2
SAP still in LaLaLand

We quote a report: "[...]
SAP is bringing a new artificial intelligence assistant to its product range. Joule is a natural-language, generative AI copilot that will be incorporated throughout the SAP cloud portfolio. The company says it will allow customers to get smarter insights from data and work more efficiently.
SAP says the AI copilot will be able to sort and contextualise large amounts of data across multiple systems and will work with its product portfolio and third-party sources. It has been designed to work throughout enterprise systems from [Human Resources (]HR[)] to finance, supply chain, procurement and customer experience.
[...]
[An incompetent] chief analyst [...] told [a publication] the best approach for companies looking to capitalise on generative AI was to have their own large language model but also make others available, so customers have a choice. This is what Salesforce has done and appears to be the route SAP is going down.
"I think what we are entering with AI is the phase where every major infrastructure/cloud player has some sort of offering that they can claim as native," [an incompetent analyst] says. "Ultimately I see the future where organizations will select the LLM based on how well it fits the use case they are building private models for. Currently, there are lots of LLMs and every cloud has one, but for me, Salesforce with its AI cloud is the correct approach - have your own LLM, but also make others available so customers can select.""

Comment
For sure, that publication is a fabricated report and that recommendation of that incompetent analyst is not the best choice, because it is a crystal clear infringement of the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, and it does not matter at all if the whole industry violates them, because it is just not the way the copyright law and the competiton law do work.

We can also see the field of Multi-Agent System (MAS) and the application of Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) and Agent Communication Languages (ACLs) in relation to the field of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and our coherent ontologic model, ontologies, foundation models, foundational models, foundational models, capability and operational models (e.g. Language Model (LM) based on ANN).
As we already noted many years ago, DSLs and ACLs are also strongly related to ontologies and XML-based languages.
Google and SAP do know that our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) includes respectively combines and integrates

• Ontology-Based technologies (OBx),

• Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot),

and therefore

See also all the Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) for Business Process Management (BPM) listed on the website of Ontologics.info.
Obviously, they have found out how genious our Evoos already was in 1999.

This very ugly episode with the company SAP will also soon come to an end. Even the companies Alphabet (Google) with its Google Cloud and Microsoft with its Microsoft Azure and partial OntoBot variant of a dialog-oriented or conversational, emotional Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) can no longer help. It's all over, just like Amazon with Audi and Audi→Lamborghini, Amazon with Bayerische MotorenWerke, Microsoft with Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia with Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia with Siemens and so on. For certain. :)
See also the note SOPR reminds about exclusive ON, OW, OV of the 18th of September 2023.

An illegal collusion, conspiracy, and plot, including an abuse of market power, cannot be any more conspicuous.
Either they sign, pay, comply, or close their booths and go away.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Also add

to the list of technologies, goods, and services, which do not get an allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of our OS.

Auch diese sehr hässliche Episode mit dem Unternehmen SAP wird bald ein Ende haben. Da können auch die Unternehmen Alphabet (Google) mit seiner Google Cloud und Microsoft mit seiner partiellen OntoBot variante eines dialogorientierten, gesprächigen, emotionalen Intelligenten Persänlichen Assistenten (IPA) nicht mehr helfen. Das ist alles vorbei genause wie Amazon mit Audi und Audi→Lamborghini, Amazon mit Bayerische MotorenWerke, Microsoft mit Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia mit Mercedes-Benz (Daimler), Nvidia mit Siemens und so weiter. Ganz sicher. :)
Siehe auch die Notiz SOPR reminds about exclusive ON, OW, OV vom 18. September 2023.

Auffälliger kann eine illegal Absprache und Konspiration samt einem Komplott und einem Missbrauch der Marktmacht ja wohl nicht mehr sein.
Entweder sie unterschreiben, bezahlen, halten ein oder machen ihre Bude zu und gehen weg.

04:38, 09:10, 19:57, and 20:40 UTC+2
Old trick of artificial competition

In relation to the stealing of more parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., we can also see how the companies Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Salesforce, and Co. once again try to create a market segment and an artificial competition, which is an old trick already documented and busted multiple times.

The same holds for the old trick of a joint gatecrash, because it does not matter at all if the whole industry violates the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. and our corporation, because it is just not the way the copyright law and the competiton law do work.

The same also holds for the old trick that all of a sudden all competitors are doing the same thing to artificially make out of the rights and properties of a competitior an essential facility, though the rulings of the courts show that

The same also holds for the old trick that a first competitor enforces the use of a first part of an essential facility and a second competitor enforces the use of a second part of an essential facility and then they collaborate on the respective parts, so that the holder of an essential facility has no control over the essential facility anymore.
For example,

could each be viewed independently as a legally enforced use of an essential facility, but as part of their illegal open data initiative, which is a plagiarism of subsystems and platforms of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), including our Marketplace for Everything (MfE), they would control the integration of both uses of essential facilities and hence an essential part of the overall infrastructures respectively essential facilities, but not our SOPR.

Eventually, these tricks and actions with the goal to get the control over a right or a property merely constitute another illegal agreement as part of the conspiracy and plot against C.S. and our corporation, and also stealing, looting, blackmailing, and so.
We already mentioned their errors of thinking and strategy, specifially that they do not fulfill the requirements to apply the fair use, genre, and essential facilities doctrines, but also that courts often just ignore the truths and the laws.

The nasty trick to simulate an ordinary technological process respectively technical benefit for the public has already been discussed and busted as well.

As we already mentioned in the note Amazon escalates situation without gain of the 25th of September 2023, they must sign a contract and in this contract they must give a reason why they pay and they must explain for what they pay, because otherwise their shareholders will take actions. Furthermore, this reason must be related to said AWs and IPs hold by C.S. and our corporation and the exclusive rights regarding their exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)), management, orchestration, etc. by our collecting SOPR directly, but not through any other entity or even an intermediate ecosystem controlled by other entities.
We do not think that they get around this and can use everything for free, because our Evoos and our OS are sui generis expressions of idea. And then every law and every court ruling kicks in, and every right and demand of us wil be enforced.
Ah, that it is. Alphabet (Google) and Co. do not want to pay at all and therefore continue with the illegal occupation and settlement of a part of the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), also know as OntoLand (OL) with the final goal to control it all, because they infringe all rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, including interfering and blocking all of our sources of financing, and therefore they are trying to repeat a dirty trick, which is based on a nonsense interpretation of one of the copyright exceptions.

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

75% + 25%, ToS with LM, x% OAOS, y% HW

22:43 UTC+2
Clarification

The field of Mixed Reality (MR) and the field of Spatial Computing are definitely not the same and therefore both terms are not interchangeable.
And both are not our

We quote the document titled "Spatial Computing" and publicized in 2003: "[...]
We are continually living a solution of problems that reflection cannot hope to solve." - J. H. Van den Berg [Van den Berg, 1955]
4. Enter Spatial Computing
Spatial computing proposes hybrid real/ virtual computation that erodes the barriers between the physical and the ideal worlds. It is computational design arising from a deep belief in phenomenology. This emphasis delimits it inside the body of HCI practice, the majority of which concerns itself exclusively with what it can measure.
Spatial computing is more interested in qualities of experience. Wherever possible the machine in space and space in the machine should be allowed to bleed into each other. Sometimes this means bringing space into the computer, sometime this means injecting computation into objects. Mostly it means designing systems that push through the traditional boundaries of screen and keyboard without getting hung up there and melting into interface or meek simulation.
In order for our machines to become fuller partners in our work and play, they are going to need to join us in our physical world. They are going to have to operate on the same objects we do, and we are going to need to operate on them using our physical intuitions:
Because we have considered the relation between human and machine as instrumental and prosthetic (subordinating and conforming machines to the requirements of human instrumentality), and even more because we have created them in the image of an ideally isolated individual, we have denied our computers the use of the shifters (here, now, you, we ...) that might transform their servitude into partnership [Cubitt, 1998; 35].
If we are not already, we are bound to become human beings embedded inside our connected machines. We will be the processors working within the giant spatial networks that surround us. How will we use space, place, and objects to direct that computation?

[...]

6. Precedents
Spatial computing is not a new discipline. It is located well within the theoretical boundaries of existing fields and programs of research such as [Human Computer Interface (]HCI[)], Ubiquitous Computing, Invisible Computing, and Tangible Interfaces. [...]"

That proves once again that our radical approaches of XR, FoR, OR, and NR, and also what is called Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC) 2.0 and Internet of Things (IoT) 2.0, Cyber-Physical System (CPS) 2.0, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Industry 4.0, digital twin, Spatial Computing 2.0, etc., and the need to operate using our mental intutitions comes from us.
Obviously, our Evoos and our OS are on a totally different level and something totally new.
Everything, which was not created by C.S. with these original and unique expressions of idea, have been integrated and referenced.

23:49 and 26:56 UTC+2
Meta AI assistant on blacklist, too

The partial plagiarisms of our one and only Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) of the company Meta (Facebook) have to be based on the exclusive and mandatory

• Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind),
• Social and Social System (S³ or SSS), and
• Marketplace for Everything (MfE),

as is the case for the

:)
See also for example the message

But honestly, Mark Zuckerberg et al. have totally different and much more important problems with legal matters.

We also quote a report: "[...]
[...] Meta's public release in July of LLaMA 2 - the code behind its latest and most advanced A.I. technology - was enthusiastically greeted by developers [...]. Meta is working with Microsoft, Google and Amazon's cloud services divisions to host the technology for developers[...] - for better or worse.
[...]"

Comment
This proves once again how that group ignores the laws and everything else and eventually tells all.

We can also see the fields of Multi-Agent System (MAS) and Agent Society (AS) of (intelligent, interactive, etc.) social agents.
Obviously, they have found out how genious our Evoos already was in 1999.

By the way:

28.September.2023

00:12 UTC+2
SOPR considering to blacklist customers of Meta AI and LLaMA

01:11 UTC+2
Bad actors learn hard lessons with OntoBot fakes

We quote a report about a plagiarism of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with our generative and creative Bionics: "[...]
ChatGPT's new [or correctly said OntoBot's old] functionalities perfectly highlight the enormous dilemma facing the AI sector. In order to be truly useful, the guardrails have to come off, or at least loosen - but doing that makes the tech potentially more dangerous and open to misuse."

Comment
We have warned everybody multiple times to

See also the note More evidence ChatGPT and Co. are fraud of the 25th of September 2023.

But honestly, Sam Altman et al. have totally different and much more important problems with legal matters.

09:58, 18:43, and 19:37 UTC+2
SOPR considering options of LM

License Model (LM)

We made crystal clear that the mess with

will not repeat, though a lot of them and their clean up are far from over at all.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering 3 options:

which are created, developed, or implemented by

Please note that core business processes of other entities, which existed before the

can be transformed into OAOS respectively implemented as OAOS and executed on the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies respectively our essential facilities, including for example our

See also the note SV, SA, et al 'R' Usof the 7th of September 2023once again.
But our SOPR is not considering more opening of our OS and more allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS as is required by law.

Our demands and the legally required actions are crystal clear:

75% + 25% - The no-brainer compromise.
And we will get them all, because we do know more than lawmakers, market regulators, prosecuters, and judges. And we are already working at all starting points and weak spots. :)

19:36 and 26:19 UTC+2
WGA not above copyright law

Writers Guild of America (WGA)

We quote a report, which is about the utilization of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with its generative and creative Bionics in the entertainment industry: "[...]
After nearly 150 days on strike, the screenwriters secured a number of groundbreaking wins in their new contract with the major film and television studios. The terms, shared by the guild, prevent the studios from using A.I. to write or rewrite material, from forcing writers to use A.I. software when producing scripts, and crediting A.I. for screenwriting, among other things.
"Guild reserves right to assert that exploitation of writers' material to train A.I. is prohibited by [the contract] or other law," the WGA's summary of the terms added, though it was not a total victory for the writers and the studios did retain some rights to use A.I.
[...]"

Comment
For sure, the WGA can add this and other clauses into its contract with the film and television studios.

But as we already explained multiple times in detail in the last weeks, our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic roBot (OntoBot) with its generative and creative Bionics fulfill all requirements to enjoy the fair use clause of the copyright law, specifically original and unique, personal, new, and even sui generis expression of idea not created as an alternative to prior art, in total contrast to all other entities, specifically those fraudulent and even serious criminal developers and implementers of illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our Evoos and our OntoBot in whole or in part, because they have not created an original and unique, personal, and new expression of idea, but only commercial alternatives. The latter is also the reason why they cannot claim fair use for their OntoBot clones and its our OntoBot.
Also note that C.S. did put in years of effort to create our Evoos and our Ontologic System (OS) with its OntoBot.
How should art work otherwise?
Therefore, it is up to the WGA to also get a contract regarding the artistic win-win policy proposed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) As Soon As Possible (ASAP).

We also have not seen so far a plagiarism generated by Bionics, but only works of art of the same genre, and plagiarisms and fakes of our OntoBot.