and also

as well as

This also already makes clear how it goes on in case of other entities, as also discussed multiple times in the past.

Furthermore, we already do have our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic Programming (OP) and Ontologic Computing (OC) paradigms, Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and so on, and all other creations, inventions, and plagiarism and fakes will not substitute them and all other entities will not control them. Technologies, goods, and services, which are based on what is wrongly and illegally called generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI), Foundation Model (FM), Reasoning Language Model (RLM), and so on, and which are wrongly and illegally called chatbot, Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI), Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), and so on, have to be implemented as Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), including our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV).
The latter also applies for Data Centers (DCs) and other parts of said infrastructures.

There is no reason for all those illegal plagirisms and fakes, like for example ChatGPT, Claud, Copilot, Gemini, Meta AI, My AI, Grok, and Co., infrastructures (e.g. facilities (e.g. DCs)), and also all those other violations of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation to exist at all, because we are already here and have no reason to go away respectively leave our OntoLand.
The same holds for other industries, including the financial industry with its investment banks, wealth management advisory service providers, and whatsoever, that have nothing else in their head than to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) of C.S. and our corporation.

And no matter what the other entities do, they are unable to neutralize the importance of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) and their dependencies on them, but need the utilization and integration of our Evoos and our OS for artistical, legal, technological, and economical reasons, for example by utilizing a part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services.

The companies Microsoft and Alibaba have read our Clarification Bionics Economics Special of the 27th of January 2025 more carefully, which does not mean that they have stopped acting in illegal ways, while the companies Nvidia (6%) and OpenAI (350 million U.S. Dollar worth of equity as of 10th of March 2025) with CoreWeave, SoftBank with OpenAI, others with X.AI.Twitter, and some more others with Whatsoever.AI©™ still do not get it.
We also got more evidences in case of the investment banks Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.
They need an exit and are looking for an exit, but still think that we would pay for their giant mess, which for sure we will not do, but takeover big biz, including big tech, big bank, and so on. :)
And the whole procedure of others still looks like coercion and blackmail.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

This also shows unmistakably where it is heading to and is ending before we will go on. How this is ultimately realized is up for constructive compromises based on the law as much as possible, if this is possible at all. Be creative, surprise us. We have proven again and again to be worth at least every gold atom and every cent.

In relation to the

we reviewed some notes and statements, specifically

In this context, we also highlight once again the 3 basic analysis processes of our Unified Examination and Assessment (UEA) method:
Apportionment analysis
The apportionment analysis is based on standard industry-proven examination and assessment methods and identifies the overall situation, the facts and circumstances regarding the

• unlawful action,
• illegal material,
• prohibited appropriation of right and property,
• exploitation of our reputation, goodwill,
• etc.,

• lobbyism and cooperation with politics,
• cooperation with media,
• conspiration with one or more other bad actors,
• collaboration with one or more organizations, communities, and other groups, such as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) activists,
• etc.,

• royalties unpaid illegally (triple damage compensations),
• all profit generated illegally (costs already deducted),
• business value increased illegally (share price, market capitalization, etc.),
• etc.,

Exclusivity-Availability-Survivability (EAS) analysis
The Exclusivity-Availability-Survivability (EAS) analysis is similar to the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison (AFC) test and identifies additional economic factors in favour of us regarding the

Hard and Soft Qualities, Quantities, Skills, and Powers (HSQQSP) analysis
The Hard and Soft Qualities, Quantities, Skills, and Powers (HSQQSP) analysis identifies additional factors in favour of others regarding the

The UED results in a complete and precise basis for further decision making, for example in relation to ratios of company shares.

In general, every member and licensing partner of our SOPR has to pay a royalty for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. in accordance with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR, which has

• internal collection, accounting, and offsetting of royalties in case of business units, subsidiaries, and Joint Venture Partners (JVPs), and
• external collection, accounting, and billing of royalties in case of licensing partners.

The estimations given in the

are a good start, which will be precised by the examination and assessment methods.

03.April.2025

01:11 UTC+2
Anysphere blacklisted

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject MIT License: "The MIT License is a permissive software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[6] in the late 1980s.[7] As a permissive license, it puts very few restrictions on reuse and therefore has high license compatibility.[8][9]
Unlike copyleft software licenses, the MIT License also permits reuse within proprietary software, provided that all copies of the software or its substantial portions include a copy of the terms of the MIT License and also a copyright notice.[9][10] [...]
Notable projects that use the MIT License include the X Window System, [...], .NET, [...].

License terms
[...]
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
[...]

[Textbox:] Debian [Free Software Guidelines (]FSG[)] compatible Yes[2] [] [Free Software Foundation (]FSF[)] approved Yes[3][4] [] [The Open Source Initiative (]OSI[)] approved Yes[5] [] [GNU General Public Licenses (]GPL[)] compatible Yes[3][4] [] Copyleft No[3][4] [] Linking from code with a different licence Yes[...]"]

Comment
This means that the MIT License is a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) license, but not a Public Domain (PD) license, etc..

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Visual Studio Code: "[...]
Visual Studio Code is was proprietary software released under the "Microsoft Software License",[6] but based on the MIT licensed program named "Visual Studio Code - Open Source [Software]" (also known as "Code - OSS"), also created by Microsoft and available through GitHub.[12]
[...]"

Comment
It is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) released under the MIT License (see the quote and comment above).

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Anysphere Cursor (code editor): "Cursor is a proprietary AI-powered integrated development environment for Windows, macOS and Linux designed to enhance developer productivity by integrating advanced artificial intelligence features directly into the coding environment. It is a fork of Visual Studio Code with additional AI features like code generation, smart rewrites and codebase queries. Cursor is proprietary software and developed by Anysphere Inc, an applied research lab involved in building AI systems.[1] Notably, Cursor's agent mode can complete tasks end-to-end, quickly executing commands while keeping programmers in the loop.

Features
Cursor has a wide range of features using large language models an Ontologic Model (OM) to manipulate text with autocomplete and chat query function. As it is a fork of Visual Studio Code, existing extensions and settings are able to be integrated into the user's workflow.
Cursor includes several key features aimed at improving software development workflows:

History [(breaks added)]
Anysphere was founded in 2022 [...].[7]
In 2023, they launched Cursor and later that year raised $8 million in seed funding, led by OpenAI's Startup Fund.[7 [Anysphere raises $8M from OpenAI to build an AI-powered IDE. [11th of October 2023]]]
In August 2024, Anysphere raised $60 million in a Series A funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz, valuing the company at $400 million.[8 [Engineers At OpenAI And Midjourney Are Using This $400 Million Startup's AI Coding Software. [22nd of October 2024]]]
In November 2024, Anysphere announced that it had acquired AI coding assistant Supermaven.[9]
In January 2025, [Kushner] Thrive Capital and Andreessen Horowitz led a Series B funding round. Anysphere raised $105 million in this round, which valued the company at $2.5 billion.[10]

[...]

Community and adoption
Cursor has garnered attention from engineers at companies such as Shopify, OpenAI, and Instacart. Users have reported significant workflow improvements, citing the editor's intuitive AI integration and efficiency in code generation and editing.[12]

Comparison with other AI code editors
In comparison to other AI-powered code editors like GitHub Copilot, Cursor offers deep integration within its standalone environment, providing advanced customization options. While both tools aim to enhance coding efficiency, the choice between them may depend on individual preferences regarding integration and workflow.[13]"

Comment
Why still coding at all?

Howsoever, it is a self-explanatory blatant copyright infringement in relation to our

• Emacs,

• Ontologic Computer-Aided Software Engineering (OntoCASE), including
  • OntoBlender,

That is even one of the most blatant infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation. They even claim to be our "applied research" OntoLab, The Lab of Visions, and the developer of the related parts of our Ontologic System (OS).

What means "fork of Visual Studio Code"? VS Code is from the company Microsoft like its plagiarism and fake Copilot and Github.
And what means "large language models"? Such plagiarisms and fakes of our OM are also made by the company OpenAI, which is also blacklisted.
And why is there a Github Copilot and a Cursor? Github Copilot is from Microsoft and OpenAI.
And why is the same investor investing in GitHub and Cursor? Github is from Microsoft, though the takeover happened only after the investment.
And why are there venture capital investors at all? Microsoft is there and has already everything with and without authorization. That is not explainable anymore exactly like the continued investment of venture capital.
And what comes next, the purchase of Anysphere by Microsoft for a moon prize like in the case of the start-up Wiz, or what?

They steal our works of art, steal our businesses and moneys to support and finance start-ups, which they also purchase later with said moneys stolen from us, and which again support other start-ups with said works of art stolen from us and finance them with said moneys stolen from us. We are not surprised, not amused, not impressed, and not able to see a benefit for us.
And there is even more in relation to those usual and very well-known bad actors, as can already be seen above.

02:09 UTC+2
OpenGov blacklisted

Open data (e.g. Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN)) is one thing, and open government is another thing, but open OS is a total different thing. The first is free, the second is tax financed, and the third is licensed.

The integration of Linked Data (LD) (1999, 2006), Cloud (1999, 2006), and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) (2011) by the compayn OpenGov is a blatant copyright infringement.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will provide this for governments, because it is in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) and Ontologic Enterprise (OntoE) enterprise, business, and commerce environments, and also the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services (see also the issue SOPR #327 of the 7th of June 2021).

We will analyse the case in more depth and potentially talk with the company Cox Enterprises and other entities concerned about the payment of damage compensations, the transfer of all illegal materials, and the other legally required actions.

22:04 UTC+2
Digital tax will achieve nothing

Many U.S.American companies will become Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) of our corporation in the transition process.
And every member and licensing partner of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) has to pay a royalty for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which is an ordinary exploitation within the scope of the copyright law, which again is not subject to digital tax.
In addition, other effects and reactions will happen.
In the end, the overall tax levy of a state might increase by 2 to 4%, if at all, but not the overall income of a state.

Digitalsteuer wird nichts bringen

04.April.2025

19:45 UTC+2
SOPR reminds of reason for the higher of ...

By now, so many fraudulent and even serious criminal actions, and quick and dirty tricks have been documented that it is even no longer necessary to go into the details of each individual action. The connections between the actions done, the tricks applied, the conspiracies formed, the corruptions committed, and the bad actors involved are enough to make a judgment.
But despite we caught them and we called horses and riders by their names, they are continuing as if nothing would have happened and they would not be concerned at all.

If shareholders will sell the shares off and the bubbles will burst completely, then the legal procedures will not change.
The profit generated will become the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value instead of the value increased, so that the first actions of the examination and assessment procedure is the comparison of the profit generated with the market capitalization and the determination of the ratio of company shares. Needless to say, both bases of assessment should lead to the same result.
We will also demand immediate payment, which in many cases will result in filing for insolvency.
As the overall result, we do expect that after renegotiation and restructuring the ratios of company shares will remain virtually the same.

We also note that we have the indisputable determination of the

of the damage compensations for the rights and properties infringed so far with around 26 trillion U.S. Dollar only in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector.
This value can easily be projected into the future, so that theorectically in case of arbitrary decision making, capricious legislation, and abstruse judgement a considerable amount would form the basis of any further actions.

If our company shares are under 51% of all company shares, then our SOPR will ask 27% for a Joint Venture Partner (JVP) in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) licensee class.

If a Joint Venture Partner (JVP) is an illegal start-up, then our company shares is 99 to 100% of all company shares, obviously.

Illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is illegal material and has to be transfered to our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and damage compensations and royalties have to be paid for what was illegal FOSS before as well, obviously. Open, but not free.

On every planet in every solar system a network, Calibre, OS.

09.April.2025

20:19 and 20:53 UTC+1
Predecessor Os for price of actual Os

The Ontoscope (Os) variant Apple iPhone could be manufactured in the U.S.America at the same price, but only its predecessor model.
The problem is that Asian countries do not have the costs of

more or less in contrast to many Western countries.

If the reversal of the production outsourcing is to work, then the protection of Intellectual Properties (IPs) has to be enforced worldwide without compromises.

20:27 UTC+2
European Commission (EC) still in LaLaLand

A condition of the inofficial arrangement, the so-called big deal, big green deal, etc., with the member states and the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU) for opening our Ontologic System (OS) and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS is the utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

under the

which are already the compromise, and the

which

as discussed again and again and more than only crystal clearly.

The strategies of the European Commission (EC) for the so called

are the next violation of the inofficial agreement made with the EU, the official Terms of Service (ToS) with its License Model (LM) of our SOPR, and the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
We also would like to note that

Needless to say, our SOPR will not invest in those more or less illegal strategies of the EC, because this is just a part of our investment and reinvestment activities, and expects that all other entities concerned and interested in the membership in our SORP will not infringe said legal matters. specifically the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights (e.g. exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization))) of C.S. and our corporation.

We also find it more than disappointing and contrary to respect, equality, legality, harmony, and mutual benefit, mildly said, that the EC is trying all the time to collaborate with U.S.American, P.R.Chinese, and other entities, specifically fraudulent and even serious criminal actors, to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

The whole thing is completely beyond reality, exactly like the pipe dream of the digital tax and other considerations, because politics and hightechs do not match, exeception proves the rule. And in this case even the European politics, U.S.American politics, P.R.Chinese politics, and other politics, and even the national laws and international laws do not match with each other.
That is not the way it works, as one can also see by all the failures made again and again and again by following that same basic strategy for more than 3 decades. Somehow one can get the impression that all of those endeavours should not work at all, but only have the goal to secure power of certain entities at the expense of the taxpayers' money.

23:49 UTC+2
Further steps

We are finalizing the issues related to the fields of

This required a short review of technical details about the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and the Single Address Space operating system (SASos) JavaOS (1996 to 1998), specfically in relation to the mixed mode operation ((template) interpreter and Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler) of the JVM in kernel space and user space, and process isolation.

In the course of this, we also stumbled again across the fields of DOA, EOA, WOA, WAA, Web Application Services (WAS), and Web Application Server (WAS), and also Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) and Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM).

Also interesting are
"[...] use Web sites as collaborative computing environments" within the limits of the state of the art and
"Oracle Web Application Server (WAS) 3.0 [...] solves the problem of interfacing to legacy applications by isolating applications from the server. This process-isolation model forces each application to run as a separate persistent process instance, while an HTTP dispatch mechanism from the HTTP server provides the glue and plumbing. Oracle's technology uses a CORBA-compliant Web object request broker (ORB) [...]."
Eventually, the development and evolution of the state of the art at that time from DOA to EOA, WOA, and WAA to WSA, WSOA, and WSSOA to mSA and also their differences.

Eventually, this review confirmed our view on SOA 1.0, and SOA 2, SOP, SOC, EOA, WOA, WSA, and so on, and their relations to each other and to, mSA, Dos, ABS, and so on.

These additional informations will be moved to the Further steps of the 18th of March 2025.

10.April.2025

05:33 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"From meme stock to meme stock exchange, [C.S., Today]

05:36 and 23:24 UTC+2
No half-hearted deals with P.R.China anymore

The situation in the P.R.China has not improved, but worsened even more in the last 15 years than it already was. What has been changed positively is marginal and completely neutralized by other developments.

We are talking about much more than

• Pure Electric™ Vehicles or Purely Electric™ Vehicles (PEVs), better known as Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs),

and also

The P.R.China has to deliver all the rest as well, including for example the support of the Western geopolitics, rights, properties, free markets, access to public contracts, reduction of state subsidies, regulation of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), etc., and not only cars, computers, textiles, and other industrial goods and services.

The U.S.America does not help the P.R.China and the European Union (EU) will not be able to help the P.R.China, because the EU do not have the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation (see also the note European Commission (EC) still in LaLaLand of the 9th of April 2025 (yesterday)).

We also would like to point out once again that an EV is already more or less an Ontoscope with Wheels™ (OwW) or Ontoscope on Wheels™ (OoW), and Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI) with AutoBrain™, Hyper Connectivity™, including our AutoCloud™ and so on.
And the golden power and takeover regulations of our SOPR, also known as win-win, demands the establishment of a Joint Venture (JV) between a P.R.Chinese manufacturer and licensee of our Ontoscope Components (OsC) and our corporation outside the P.R.China with a so-called golden power ratio of the company shares of at least Us:Chinese Company 51%:49%, in addition to the payment of damage compensations, the higher of apportioned compensation, profit, and value, transfer of all illegal materials, and other legally required actions.

Ultimately, what truly matters are the

See also the note

11.April.2025

07:39 and 23:00 UTC+2
SOPR reminds of digital and virtual rights, properties

*** Work in progress - better wording ***
Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would like to give the reminder about a legal matter discussed since at least December 2019.

According to the

which are already the compromise, and the

the raw signals and data generated respectively mined in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) also belong to the digital and virtual properties or assets of C.S. and our corporation.

According to the ToS of our SOPR, our SOPR has the right for the

access to the

• anonymized personal data or Personally Identifiable Informations (PIIs), as common with for example web service and social networking platforms,
• real-time and stored raw sensor data of autonomous vehicles,
• etc.,

if required in real-time and
utilization of them for all kinds of activities of our SOPR

Note that despite we have unrestricted access to the raw signals and data (e.g. of service providers) our SOPR does not sell or share them, but only use them internally for the benefit of all members of our SOPR respectively the public, and without abusing its extraordinary position, specifically without gaining any economic advantage, which is illegal.
right to use raw signals and data, Personally Identifiable Information (PII), knowledge bases, belief bases, models, algorithms, etc. in compliance with said legal matters

We also recall a related regulation of the ToS for opening our Ontologic System (OS) and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS is the utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

This holds for the companies Meta (Facebook), Snapchat, X.AI.Twitter, and ByteDance (e.g. TikTok, Douyin, Toutiao), AI kiddies, and every other member, and artwork and technology licensing partner of our SOPR.

We quote the Digital Market Act (DMA) of the European Union: "[...]
"(55) Business users that use large core platform services provided by gatekeepers and end users of such business users provide and generate a vast amount of data, including data inferred from such use. In order to ensure that business users have access to the relevant data thus generated, the gatekeeper should, upon their request, allow unhindered access, free of charge, to such data. Such access should also be given to third parties contracted by the business user, who are acting as processors of this data for the business user. Data provided or generated by the same business users and the same end users of these business users in the context of other services provided by the same gatekeeper may be concerned where this is inextricably linked to the relevant request. To this end, a gatekeeper should not use any contractual or other restrictions to prevent business users from accessing relevant data and should enable business users to obtain consent of their end users for such data access and retrieval, where such consent is required under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. Gatekeepers should also facilitate access to these data in real time by means of appropriate technical measures, such as for example putting in place high quality application programming interfaces."

Comment
The Digital Market Act (DMA) of the European Union (EU) is in part illegal, because it demands the

and therefore the EU with its DMA interferes with, and also obstructs, undermines, and harms the

of C.S. and our corporation, because these property and moral rights grant the

• exclusive trading of said digital and virtual assets of C.S. and
• exclusive trading of said data on the Marketplace for Everyting (MfE) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies,

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

• sell a
  • New Energy™ vehicle, specifically an Ontoscope with Wheels™ (OwW) or Ontoscope on Wheels™ (OoW), and Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI) with AutoBrain™, Hyper Connectivity™, including our AutoCloud™, and so on,
  • mobile device, specifically a handheld Ontoscope, head-mounted Ontoscoope, and wearable Ontoscope,
  • Industry 4.0 goods,
• improve investments,
• do other activities,

then said company has to sign the set of legal documents, pay the damage compensations, pay the royalties, comply with the legal conditions, transfer all illegal materials, etc. even in the P.R.China.
While the situation for Chinese companies outside (mainland) China is clear by the

the Joint Ventures (JVs) between the SOPR and other companies inside mainland China have this right of unlimited, unrestricted, or unhindered access as well in compliance with the national security, cyber sovereignty, and other federal regulations.

14.April.2025

04:11 UTC+1
Clarification

At first, we quote a first report, which is about our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), including our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), including our fields of Cyber-Physical System of the second generation (CPS 2.0), Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0) and Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT), Industry of the sixth generation (Industry 6.0 or I 6.0), Industry of the sixth generation (Industry 6.0 or I 6.0), and Industry of the sixth generation (Industry 6.0 or I 6.0), Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), etc., and also our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and much more, and was publicized on the 30th of March 2025: "Microsoft presents AI assistants for industry
Artificial intelligence is the dominant theme at the Hannover Messe. Microsoft is presenting new types of assistants, which are designed to make work processes in factories much easier.
Microsoft is presenting new virtual assistants with Artificial Intelligence [(AI)] for widespread use in industry at the recently opened Hannover Messe. One of the software company's trade fair innovations

presentations is the "Factory Operations Agent" [variant of our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot)]. According to the company, this is an AI-supported assistant designed to optimize processes on the factory floor.
For example, the solution enables workers to analyze data from their machines by making queries in natural language. "Responsible managers" would be able to use it to optimize production processes.
With the AI assistants, it is also possible to identify sources of error and solve problems more easily than before. [... The] managing director of Microsoft Germany, said at the start of the Hannover Messe that AI is out of the testing and experimentation phase and is now being used on a large scale in industry. [...]"]

Comment
See also the other comments to the quotes below.

We also quote a second report, which is about our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and also our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and much more, and was broadcasted on the 30th of March 2025: "[...]
[Moderator:] and a major focus is of course on the topic of AI, as we have already reported. Where are the interfaces with industry, projects where you say "Yes, that is interesting, that is new"?
[Journalist:] Yes, artificial intelligence is the dominant topic here in every hall, it has to be said. In the end, there are two main areas. For example, there are assistance systems, from which employees in industry should benefit, they should be enabled by AI to operate complicated systems without much prior knowledge or to repair systems without being specialists, without having to call computer scientists at the end of the day. So it is also about efficiency. [...] But Microsoft, for example, has also announced "[...] that is all a bit like yesterday's snow". It is about AI models performing tasks autonomously. We will be able to see what that means in concrete terms here at Microsoft in the next few days.
But Siemens [...], which is also active in another area, namely in research into medicines and vaccines. The idea is that AI will enable researchers to no longer have to worry so much about documentation [...]. Yes, AI is supposed to take over this task and this should ensure that vaccines and medicines are ready for the market much more quickly.
[Moderatorin:] [...]"

Comment
See our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its

• foundation of Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Foundational Model (FM) or Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale,

• foundation of transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• foundation of bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• foundation of prompt engineering, configuring, cognitive processing, teaching, etc.,

• Autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AAI),
• Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot),
• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• foundation of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• foundation of (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), and
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),

• what is wrongly and illegally called Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• what is wrongly and illegally called (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered Search Engine or AI Search Engine (AISE),
• what is wrongly called AI-powered chatbot or AI chatbot,
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered assistant or AI assistant, or intelligent assistant,
• what is illegally called agentic AI,
• what is wrongly and illegally called Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI) or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,

and our Ontologic System (OS) with its

• Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Foundational Model (FM) or Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale,

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• prompt engineering, cognitive processing, teaching, etc.,

• Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot),
• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• Autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AAI),
• Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), and
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),

See the note

See also the other comment to the quote below.

We also quote an interview, which is about our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and also our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and much more, and was broadcasted on the 30th of March 2025: "World's largest industrial show [] Hannover Messe opens to the public
[Moderator:] [...] and that's what we're talking about now with [a scientist and ...] the director of the German Economic Institute in Cologne. [...]
We have just heard in the article that visitors should actually come to the trade fair to find out about the future of industry. In your opinion, what does that look like?
[Director:] Yes, it will of course be based to a large extent on digital transformation, as you indicated. We are trying to enable advances in productivity by using [coherent Ontologic Models (OM) and transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, including] generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) models to harness the knowledge that we already have, which is a conservative approach, in a different way. And that has great potential. We have calculated this. If you think about it in terms of the national economy, you come up with 300 billion euros in added value, which equates to around 100 hours per employee per year. Measured against the shortage of skilled workers, this would help us considerably by 2030, but it requires that companies consistently adapt their organizational structures.
[Moderator:] Do you mean through artificial intelligence?
[Director:] Yes, because if you use it in one place, it means that working time is freed up. Then you can't just leave the employee there, you have to use them for other activities [...]. In this respect, the second step after the introduction of generative AI models and learning with these models, the specific application competence for the company, is to then draw the organizational consequences for the work organization, for the processes. only then will the productivity effects really become tangible.
[Moderator:] Help us to categorize this. There are experts who compare artificial intelligence with groundbreaking inventions, such as the printing press or electricity. Would you go further, also in terms of jobs?
[Director:] Yes, it is certainly a basic innovation, as we economists call it, that has an impact across the economy, especially where we develop or evaluate text-based things, such as in auditing, where it was previously not even possible to think about achieving productivity effects and such gains. In an ageing workforce, a shrinking workforce, this is of course very important. On the other hand, there are also challenges, particularly the security of the systems. The algorithms must not become self-running, so to speak, and we also know that the open Large Language Models [(LLMs)], which make themselves available on the Internet, so to speak, harbor risks of hallucination, of inventing results, they also have no concept of truth in them and therefore it must also be seen that the potential of this basic innovation requires an accompanying security infrastructure, as was ultimately the case with the introduction of electricity. The first lines were very unsafe and this is where you have to start and that is now part of it.
[Moderatorin:] [...]
[Director:] [...] They need for the data processing capacity such data centers, for example also an infrastructural requirement to make generative artificial intelligence economically effective. [...] And we can do these things here above all, because for us industry, so-called Industry Domain Language Models (IDLM), i.e. for the respective industry, mechanical engineering, the chemical-related models can then have a high effect, because they then also continue the competitive advantage that German industry has through its long history of high-quality work.
[Moderatorin:] [...]"

Comment
Yes, and this basic innovation is in fact our genious creation, as artists, creators, and we correctly call it, which of course is not for free.
And that creative term Industrial Domain Language Model (IDLM) means nothing else than the term Domain Specific Language (DSL) Model (DSLM) (for the domain of industry or industries, hence industry specific language model), and the original designation Ontologic Model (OM), which includes our integration of

and is also integrated with our Ontologic Computing (OC), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and so on.

But maybe our fans and readers have also spotted the contradiction: The industry does not need the feature of our transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, which is fantasy-based and quantity-oriented, but the other feature of our Ontologics, which is fact-based and quality-oriented, validated and verified, and so on.
This is also required to protect the truth and prevent the self-running, to operate the security infrastructure, which belongs to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies, and so on.

Eventually, the pure ANNLM, LLM, chatbot, etc. scam is over and we will not go on with all that fraudulent and even serious criminal AI crap.
If it has one or more features, such as top-down, open-domain, global, integrated (unified and hybrid), validated, verified, reasoning, ontology-based, etc., then 'R' Us.

By the way:

15.April.2025

05:59 UTC+2
Amdocs' patents are void

We quote an online encyclopedia about the lawsuit Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016): "[...]
In the Federal Circuit panel's view the patents were eligible because they contained an "inventive concept" - a combination of elements that was sufficient to ensure that the patents amounted to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept itself.
[...]"

Comment
This general view is correct, but not the rest.
In fact, a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) playing puzzle with prior art respectively compiling, composing, or integrating basic blocks of software technology, which are the fields of

would have come to the same solution.
We also have our Ontologic System (OS), which includes the

• Business Process Modeling Language (BPML), which is directly related to the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) referenced in relation to the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) Ontology Version 2.0,

We are even very sure that prior art exists, including the Teaching, Suggestion, and Motivation (TSM), because that integration is just such a basic and old hat. This is even done at universities as ordinary software projects by students of Informatics and Computer Sciences.
Therefore, no inventive concept has been presented and claimed and thus no patent eligibility exists.
Having said this, this matter is on the level of the famous sealed crustless sandwich patent and US2947637A - Sandwich package patent for a sandwich cut diagonally. Those patents should never have been registered in the patent role at all.

Instead of discussing the

the courts would have come to the correct ruling by just using a Search Engine (SE) or asking the companies Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Oracle, SAP, Salesforce, etc. for expert opinions, informations, and evidences.

17.April.2025

06:23 and 13:48 UTC+2
Windsurf blacklisted

We quote a report, which is about the companies OpenAI, Windsurf, and Anysphere, and was publicized on the 16th of April 2025: "Windsurf, the maker of a popular AI coding assistant, is in talks to be acquired by OpenAI for about $3 billion, [a second media company] reported.
If the deal happens, it would put OpenAI in direct competition with a number of other AI coding assistant providers, including Anysphere, the maker of Cursor, which OpenAI backed from its OpenAI Startup Fund.
The acquisition could jeopardize the credibility of the OpenAI Startup Fund, given that it is one of Cursor's biggest investors, said a person familiar with Cursor's cap table. It's not clear whether OpenAI approached Cursor about an acquisition.
In addition to what sources told [a second media company], there are a few more clues that something is going on between the two companies. A couple of days ago, Windsurf users received an email that said that because of an announcement later this week, they have the option to lock in access to the coding editor at $10 a month.
And OpenAI Chief Product Officer Kevin Weil also released a video yesterday praising Windsurf's capabilities.
Windsurf, the company formerly known as Codeium, has been in talks to raise fresh funds at a $2.85 billion valuation [...], [a first media company] reported in February. The company has reached about $40 million in annualized recurring revenue (ARR), according to our reporting. That revenue run rate is much lower than Cursor's, which reportedly makes $200 million on an ARR basis. Cursor has been in talks to raise capital at about $10 billion valuation, [a second media company] reported last month.
[...]"

Comment

It is a self-explanatory blatant copyright infringement.

• ....

• ....

• ....

• ...

• Emacs,
• ....

• Ontologic Computer-Aided Software Engineering (OntoCASE), including
  • OntoBlender,
  • ...,

It also answers our question made in the note Anysphere blacklisted of the 3rd of April 2025 about what comes next: The purchase of Windsurf for a moon price.
See also the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and Knowledge management of the 3rd of October 2012 about the Gnowledge Project to find more information about our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) and the Emacs editor.

Obviously, Sam Altman with the rest of OpenAI is showing his true face to all other partners as well, mildly said, as he did with Elon Musk and other founders of OpenAI.
See also for example the note Do not be fooled by SoftBank, OpenAI, and Co. of the 7th of February 2025.
None of them calls the shots or question our competences, definitely not.
We told you so. :D

By the way:

06:49 and 11:08 UTC+2
CoreWeave blacklisted

We quote a report, which is about the companies OpenAI and CoreWeave, and was publicized on the 10th of March 2025: "In another chess move with Microsoft, OpenAI is pouring $12B into CoreWeave
In a grandmaster-level chess move, OpenAI has signed a five-year, $11.9 billion agreement with the GPU-heavy cloud service provider CoreWeave, which [a second media company] originally reported and CoreWeave confirmed in a press release.
The deal involves OpenAI receiving $350 million worth of equity in CoreWeave, the companies said. The private placement is said to be separate from CoreWeave's planned IPO.
CoreWeave filed to become a public company last week, but it has not yet priced or scheduled its debut.
It's a win for both companies. One reason this agreement is so eye-popping (besides the billions involved) is that before this deal, CoreWeave's biggest customer was Microsoft. In fact, in 2024, Microsoft accounted for 62% of CoreWeave's revenue, which grew to a stunning $1.9 billion - nearly an eightfold increase from just $228.9 million in 2023.
Backed by Nvidia, which holds a 6% stake, CoreWeave runs an AI-specific cloud service with a network of 32 data centers that operated more than 250,000 Nvidia GPUs as of the end of 2024, according to the company. Since then, CoreWeave has added more GPUs, including Nvidia's latest product, Blackwell, which supports AI reasoning, the company said.
Such dependence on one customer is usually worrisome for IPO investors and could have added "hair" as they say, to CoreWeave's hopes of raising $4 billion or more in its IPO. Landing OpenAI as a direct customer in a multi-billion-dollar deal should help CoreWeave appease investors.

Microsoft and OpenAI's relationship
What makes this move equally interesting is that it's another step in the deteriorating, frenemies relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI.
It's as if OpenAI CEO Sam Altman saw Microsoft's usage of CoreWeave and said, "Hold my beer."
Not only will OpenAI have access to the same cloud, but it will also have an ownership stake in the company that runs it.
Microsoft is, of course, a big backer of OpenAI in a deal that entitles Microsoft to collect a portion of OpenAI's revenue. But tensions between two companies have been rising for years, as OpenAI's fortunes have soared. OpenAI competes with Microsoft for enterprise customers and is even reportedly working on rolling out pricey AI agents.
In January, as part of the massive Stargate AI infrastructure deal with SoftBank, Oracle, and others, Microsoft ceased being OpenAI's sole cloud provider. OpenAI needs more compute resources. Just last week, Altman complained that OpenAI is "out of GPUs."
For its part, Microsoft is working on its own AI "reasoning" models comparable to OpenAI's o1 and o3-mini. It's developing a whole family of its own models called MAI that are competitive with OpenAI. It also hired Altman's rival, Mustafa Suleyman, to lead Microsoft AI.
But CoreWeave is a surprising chess piece.
CoreWeave began its life as a crypto mining operation, founded by former hedge fund guys, it said. The three co-founders have already cashed out of $488 million worth of shares - over $150 million apiece. CoreWeave also has a stunning $7.9 billion of debt on the books.
If the IPO generates the billions of new capital they hope it will, the company says it will use at least some of that to pay down the debt.
While these founders were once literally attempting to use GPUs to mint money, they are figuratively apparently accomplishing it.
OpenAI did not respond to our request for comment."

Comment
We simply remind of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

Obviously, Sam Altman with the rest of OpenAI is showing his true face to all other partners as well, mildly said, as he did with Elon Musk and other founders of OpenAI.
We also guess that we have another deteriorating, frenemies relationship between Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Masayoshi Son (SoftBank).
See also for example the note Do not be fooled by SoftBank, OpenAI, and Co. of the 7th of February 2025.
None of them calls the shots or question our competences, definitely not.
We told you so. :D

By the way:

18.April.2025

12:31 UTC+2
Microsoft still in LaLaLand

We have the opinion that the ignorance of the company Microsoft regarding our prohibition of illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), specifically its

• post-training with an illegal plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind) of an external, third party despite it also has an own illegal plagiarism and fake of our OntoSearch and OntoFind, which is based on another illegal plagiarism and fake of our OntoSearch and OntoFind,
• "coherent, contextually relevant text",
• "general knowledge" and information retrieval, including
  • "open-domain [Question Answering (QA)] requiring factual knowledge",
• "natural language inference",
• "commonsense reasoning",
• "complex reasoning and problem solving",
• "structured problem solving",
• "Chain-of-Thought (CoT)" reasoning,
• "code generation and comprehension",
• "semantic categories",
• "topics",
• "fine-tuning",
• "multilingual",
• blocking and unblocking logics,
• "human oversight and verification" and "automated validation",
• "continuous monitoring",
• etc.,

(all terms, phrases, and utilizations deliberately, comprehensively, illegally copied from our website of our Ontologic System (OS) OntoLinux and this website of OntomaX) does not really show goodwill and harmony, but that Microsoft is continuing with the destruction of our works of art, achievements, and reputation deliberately, strategically, and methodically, like one has never seen it before on the one hand and like other entities also do on the other hand, and does not improve its legal situation, though the latter is already a total mess, which hardly can become an even bigger disaster.

The point is not that we do not understand what they are trying and doing, but we do not need all that total nonsense, because either we do have the rights and properties, or not, and we will not pay for that even not with promotional gifts or giveaways, and whatsoever.

Howsoever, the latter and other recent actions (e.g. OpenAI, illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), Venture Capital (VC)) once again raise the question why Microsoft is still continuing with infringing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, which is also effectively damaging its company respectively share of what will inevtiably come in the future.
But we also note that the amount of the damage, which Microsoft made alone and in collaboration with other entities, has already exceeded the value of its company by far and therefore raises considerable doubt whether a ratio of company shares of 90%:10% is truly fair and reasonable, and an establishment of a Joint Venture (IV) is truly sensible and appropriate.

We also note once again that since 3 decades Microsoft is absolutely unable and unwilling to participate and compete legally in a rule-base law and order environment and market, and we are not talking about abuse of market power, growth and improvement of monopoly, etc., but serious criminal activities, including wire fraud, investment fraud, blackmailing, conspiracy, corruption, and so on.
Eventually, one has to be rational and realistic and conclude that there is no doubt anymore that Microsoft has no chance to prevail on the basis of its fraudulent and even serious criminal activities, which implies that Microsoft 1.0 is dead.

By the way:

13:23 UTC+2
TCL Technology Group (TCL) still in LaLaLand

We quote a report, which was publicized today: "Thunderbird Innovations releases V3 AI photography glasses [...]
[...]

01 Hardware Innovation: Comprehensive Technological Breakthrough
Thunderbird V3 AI photography glasses are a new product that integrates excellent image quality camera, fast and accurate AI, high-quality headphones, and comfortable glasses. The product encompasses the essence of Thunderbird in the field of imaging and AI technology in the past two years, and supports triple privacy protection. As a benchmark product of the new generation of smart glasses, Thunderbird V3 has demonstrated all-round technological breakthroughs and has become a pinnacle product leading the industry.
[...]

02 True AI Agent: A breakthrough in the integration of software and hardware
In terms of AI capabilities, Thunderbird Innovations is well aware that a true "AI Agent" must be a deep integration of software and hardware capabilities. With the development of big model technology, the industry has gradually realized that it is difficult to achieve true intelligent interaction by relying solely on big models, and it is necessary to use the Agent architecture to strengthen AI's decision-making ability, interaction ability, and scenario adaptability.
Adhering to this concept, Thunderbird has innovatively built a complete AI capability matrix. Take ChatBird, an AI social application independently developed by Thunderbird Technology, another Thunderbird team, as an example. It innovatively combines the multi-agent framework of large language models with virtual social scenes to achieve intelligent interaction beyond simple conversations. By building a judging agent and a behavior scoring mechanism, the system can not only evaluate user behavior in real time, but also provide real emotional feedback; by innovatively adopting a multi-agent concurrent framework, it effectively solves technical problems such as high computational complexity and reasoning delays in large models in practical applications; and through the method of fine-grained task splitting, the expressiveness and stability of the model are significantly improved.
On this basis, Thunderbird V3 has further reached an exclusive in-depth cooperation with Ali Tongyi to jointly create the industry's first AI large model specifically for smart glasses. This customized model can not only better understand user needs in the glasses scenario, but also provide Agent with more accurate knowledge support and decision-making basis, fundamentally improving the interactive experience of AI glasses.

03 Thunderbird X3 Pro: Climbing the " Mount Everest " of AR Technology
In the field of AR optical display, Thunderbird Innovation also continues to lead the industry and continuously break through the peak of technology with its super-strong full-link self-developed and complete ecological matrix. [...]
[...]"

Comment
At first, we note the structure of the company: Chinese partially State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) TCL Technology Group (formerly Telecom Corporation Limited) (TCL)→TCL Industries Holdings→TCL Electronics Holdings (formerly TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings)→Thunderbird Innovation→brand RayNeo.

Furthermore, we note that some more announcements have been publicized by the companies TCL and Alibaba, for example on the 3rd of January 2025 and 26th of March 2025.

We also note that all P.R.Chinese companies, including the companies Alibaba and TCL, have to get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS) from our SOPR, which demands the compliance with the

which are already the compromise, and the

which again demands the

among some other very simple to understand and FRANDAC actions.

A blacklisting will be withdrawn if a

Obvioiusly, it is an unauthorized respectively illegal integration of our

• Ontoscope MultiGlasses Architecture, including
  • iRaiment or iR Rayfarer, also known as MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer, and designs similar to Ray-Ban Wayfarer, etc., and
  • iRaiment or iR Cyberskin, also known as MultiOakley Frogskins, and designs similar to Oakley Frogskins, etc.,

or/and

• Ontologic Net (ON) with its Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup),
• Ontologic Web (OW) with its Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0),
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV) with its eXtended Mixed Reality© (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality© (XR), including
  • Mediated Reality (MedR), including
    • Mixed Reality (MR), including
      • Augmented Reality (AR),
      • Augmented Virtuality (AV), and
      • Virtual Reality (VR),
• and much more

and therefore a self-explanatory blatant copyright infringement.
And nothing is creative, innovative, or exclusive by other entities, as wrongly and illegally claimed by TCL, because it belongs to the original and unique works of art created by C.S. and exclusively exploited by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) with the consent and on behalf of C.S..

Normally, we blacklist every integration of our OM, OB, Os, or/and Ov and NR, XR, and so on, because at first the

But in case of a

our SOPR tolerates certain illegal actions only until the

has happened.
Actually, TCL Technology has not signed, payed, complied, and done the other legally required actions in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), and is not considered a designated JVP or a designated LP.

Moreover, the whole activity has to be viewed as part of the P.R.Chinese government subprogram related to what is wrongly called the Metaverse (Mv) and other programs (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM), etc.).
We are seeing such activities everywhere and already came to the conclusion that a large part of the economy of the P.R.China is based on our OS and a broad overall program has been started by its government, consisting of many state subprograms, which ignore the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, as mentioned by us in the last past, and continue with the stealing of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., after it has stolen engineering technologies, goods, and services, our handheld Ontoscope, wrist-worn Ontoscope, head-worn Ontoscope, and also Ontoscope on Wheels, and other Os variants, what is wrongly and illegally called Cloud, and so on in the past.
If the P.R.China truly wants to improve relationships, collaborations, investments, etc., then it has to stop that immediately and completely. There will be no repetition of the mess and freeloading of the last 25 years.

See also the notes

Bye the way:

21.April.2025

08:07 UTC+2
Viture still in LaLaLand

We quote a marketing material: "[...]
Vizard AI Assistant
Native Voice-controlled gaming assistant powered by [a plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot)]
[...]

Comment
Obvioiusly, it is an unauthorized respectively illegal integration of our

• Ontoscope MultiGlasses Architecture, including
  • iRaiment or iR Rayfarer, also known as MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer, and designs similar to Ray-Ban Wayfarer, etc., and
  • iRaiment or iR Cyberskin, also known as MultiOakley Frogskins, and designs similar to Oakley Frogskins, etc.,

or/and

• Ontologic Net (ON) with its Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup),
• Ontologic Web (OW) with its Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0),
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV) with its eXtended Mixed Reality© (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality© (XR), including
  • Mediated Reality (MedR), including
    • Mixed Reality (MR), including
      • Augmented Reality (AR),
      • Augmented Virtuality (AV), and
      • Virtual Reality (VR),
• and much more

and therefore a self-explanatory blatant copyright infringement.

Normally, we blacklist every integration of our OM, OB, Os, or/and Ov and NR, XR, and so on, because at first the

But in case of a

our SOPR tolerates certain illegal actions only until the

has happened.
Actually, Viture has not signed, payed, complied, and done the other legally required actions in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), and is not considered a designated JVP or a designated LP.

See also the notes

22.April.2025

11:47 and 14:17 UTC+2
A lot more still in LaLaLand?!

We quote and translate a report, which is about the company Alphabet (Google): "[...]
Google has agreed to pay the smartphone manufacturer Samsung an "enormous sum" to install the Google AI app Gemini on its devices.
[...]"

Comment
We just try to resolve the whole situation:
The subsidiary Google of the company Alphabet

• make a lot of money respectively steal our money with their illegal plagiarisms and fakes, and
• distribute (parts of) our originals as illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS),

and

If this is truly happening, then we have some questions and answers.

Now we also wonder how the same is working with the companies OpenAI and Apple with their illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our OB and Os, which is operated by a partial partial illegal plagiarism and fake of our OS.

Just as reminder, we would like to point out once again that none of them has to perform and reproduce certain parts of our OS in general and to do so without allowance and license in particular, but they have to pay us for the

• Ontologic System Components (OSC) and
• Ontoscope Components (OsC),

and

And they all are doing that, while we are trying to resolve the overall legal issue.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

15:13 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We also cleared potential legal issues related to the

We are also preparing the revision of the analysis result in accordance with our Unified Examination and Assessment (UEA) method, which is required due to

23.April.2025

07:35, 08:15, and 11:16 UTC+2
Google Chrome is not for sale

Several reasons are against a sale of the web browser Chrome of the subsidiary Google of the company Alphabet.

• Opera still in LaLaLand of the 26th of July 2023,
• Mozilla has to overwork Firefox of the 12th of November 2024,
• Web browser and IP suit no legal alternative to OS of the 31st of December 2024, and
• Remove that AI crap from Firefox immediately of the 8th of March 2025.

Somehow, a proposal about a purchase sounds exactly like the totally ridiculous hallucination of buying OpenAI by X.AI.Twitter.
We are also wondering what the company Microsoft is thinking about that, because it already has an illegal integration of its web browser Bing with its illegal plagiarism and fake of our OntoBot, which is based on another illegal plagiarism and fake of our OntoBot of a company, that made such a proposal.

So much about an

By the way:

10:21 and 17:28 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - review of DLT and DID, and alignment with 23rd of December 2024 and 31st of March 2025 ***

We have found a copyright infringement in relation to the

For better explanation, discussion, and understanding we begin with some introducing informations and facts about the related fields and subjects:

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Digital IDentity (DID or DigID): "A digital identity is data stored on computer systems relating to an individual, organization, application, or device. For individuals, it involves the collection of personal data that is essential for facilitating automated access to digital services, confirming one's identity on the internet, and allowing digital systems to manage interactions between different parties. It is a component of a person's social identity in the digital realm, often referred to as their online identity.
[...]

Technical aspects
[...]

Digital identifiers
Digital identity requires digital identifiers - strings or tokens that are unique within a given scope (globally or locally within a specific domain, community, directory, application, etc.).
[...]
[Image caption:] Use of decentralized identifiers [(DIDs)] [The image shows the following: "DID enable digitally signed verifiable claims [...] Private or Public Blockchain or other Decentralized Network"]

[...]"

Comment
First of all, we note that a blockchain must not be based on a decentralized network.
And digital identity and digital identifier are not the same.

We also note that the image connects the fields of Digital IDentity (DID or DigID), Decentralized IDentifier (DID or DecID), and blockchain technique, which is prior art presented in the 1980s and 1990s.

And we also reiterate that our Ontologic System (OS) includes all of these elements as basic properties, functionalities, and Ontologic System Components (OSC) and integrates all of them by the design of its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).
See also the

and the related messages, notes, explanations, clarifications, investigations, and claims, specifically

We quote once agian an online encyclopedia about the subject Decentralized IDentifier (DID or DecID): "A decentralized identifier (DID) is a type of globally unique identifier that enables an entity to be identified in a manner that is verifiable, persistent (as long as the DID controller desires), and does not require the use of a centralized registry.[1 [Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 [www.w3.org/TR/did-core/]. World Wide Web Consortium]] DIDs enable a new model of decentralized digital identity that is often referred to as a self-sovereign identity.[2 [Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) v1.0 [eIDAS supported Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI)]. European Commission. [May 2019]]] They are an important component of decentralized web applications.

DID documents
[...]
>[Image caption:] DID explanation [The image shows a User Interface (UI) of a digital wallet, which belongs to our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), on an Ontoscope (Os) and the following information: "Another key concept to understand is the Decentralised IDentifier (DID)? [...] A Decentralised identity (DID) is just a permanent (persistent) identifier that can be looked up to retrieve a DID Document [...]
DIDs leverage on the inherent properties of blockchain or distributed ledgers [...]"]

Usage of DIDs
A DID identifies any subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract entity, etc.) that the controller of the DID decides that it identifies. DIDs are designed to enable the controller of a DID to prove control over it and to be implemented independently of any centralized registry, identity provider, or certificate authority. DIDs are URIs that associate a DID subject with a DID document.[4] Each DID document can express cryptographic material, verification methods, and service endpoints to enable trusted interactions associated with the DID subject. A DID document might contain additional semantics about the subject that it identifies. A DID document might also contain the DID subject itself (e.g. a data model).[5][1]
National efforts include the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet [(EDIW)] as a part of [electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services of the second generation (]eIDAS 2.0[)] in the European Union,[6 [SSI advocates welcome EU digital wallet, IOTA sees opportunity. [8th of March 2024]]] and China Real-Name Decentralized Identifier System (China RealDID) under China's Ministry of Public Security.[7 [China's project to verify real-name digital ID leans into national blockchain ambitions. [13th of December 2023]]] The [Authenticated Transfer (]AT[)] Protocol and applications powered by the protocol [...] use DIDs for their identity system in order to give users full control over their identity, including where their data is stored. The protocol uses its own DID method, [...].

Standardization efforts
The W3C DID Working Group[8] developed a specification for decentralized identifiers to standardize the core architecture, data model, and representation of DIDs.
The W3C approved the DID 1.0 specification as a W3C Recommendation on July 19, 2022.[1]
The Decentralized Identity Foundation (DIF) published a Dynamic Traveler Profile Generation Specification in June 2023, for use cases in the travel industry. [9]

See also

Comment
First of all, we note that a decentralized ledger must not be a distributed ledger.
We also reiterate that a certain degree of confusion and manipulation exists in relation to centralized and decentralized (federated and distributed)

or said in other words, network model is not network control, operation, and consensus.
See also the Clarification of the 23rd of December 2024.

We do not claim for the integration of the field of Distributed Data Storage (DDS) (e.g. replicated database) with the blockchain data structure.
But we said to make this and other integrations a basic part of the successor of the World Wide Web (WWW) no matter if this successor is called Web 3.0, Web3, or Decentralized Web (DWeb). And therefore we do hold the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and proper referencing respectively citation with attribution is required worldwide.

{better argumentation} We also note that at least the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) (Peer-to-Peer (P2P)) was created with our OS as well and the integration of the blockchain technique, IDentity (ID), specifically Digital IDentity (DID), and World Wide Web (WWW) as a basic part of our Web 3.0, Web 4.0, and Web 5.0, which again is based on our OS since the end of October 2006, but as far as we do know was not presented as prior art about basic and general WWW technology before.
was not presented as prior art either

And we also point out once again that our Ontologic System (OS) includes all of these elements as basic properties, functionalities, and Ontologic System Components (OSC) and integrates all of them by the design of its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).
See once again the first list point of the Feature-List #2 on the webpage Feature-Lists of the website of OntoLix and OntoLinux, and the quote and comment about Digital IDentity (DID or DigID) above.

Somehow, we have the impression that the W3 Consortium and the European Commission (EC) have infringed our copyright once again.
See also the Clarification of the 31st of March 2025.

The first version of the webpage quoted above was publicized on the 25th of 26th of February 2020, which supports all of our claims, as is the case with the other developments of the last years.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services (eIDAS): "The eIDAS Regulation (for "electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services") is an [European Union (]EU[)] regulation with the stated purpose of governing "electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions". It passed in 2014 and its provisions came into effect between 2016 and 2018.[1][2]
The eIDAS Regulation was fundamentally amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024.[3] The main purpose of the amendment is to introduce a voluntary digital wallet (European Digital Identity [Wallet (EDIW)]) that member states must issue at the request of EU citizens.[4 [European digital identity (eID): Council adopts legal framework on a secure and trustworthy digital wallet for all Europeans]]

Description
The eIDAS-Regulation oversees electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the European Union's internal market. [...]

Timeline
The law was established in EU Regulation 910/2014 of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and repealed 1999/93/EC from 13 December 1999.[1][2]
[...]
In July 2024, the first eIDAS-Testbed was launched by the go.eIDAS-Association with a number of German tech firms and foundations to issue PID-Credentials to Architecture and Reference Framework (ARF)-compliant wallets.[11]
[...]
The intent of eIDAS is to drive innovation. By adhering to the guidelines set for technology under eIDAS, organisations are pushed towards using higher levels of information security and innovation. Additionally, eIDAS focuses on the following:[7][13]

Regulated aspects in electronic transactions
The Regulation provides the regulatory environment for the following important aspects related to electronic transactions:[2]

• user choice,
• privacy,
• Interoperability[, ...]
• security,
• trust,
• convenience,
• user consent[, ...]
• control proportionality,
• counterpart knowledge and
• global scalability.

• [...]
• Advanced electronic signatures can be technically implemented, following the [XML Advanced Electronic Signatures (]XAdES[)], [Portable Document Format (PDF) Advanced Electronic Signatures (]PAdES[)], [Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Advanced Electronic Signatures (]CAdES[)] or [Associated Signature Containers (]ASiC[)] Baseline Profile [...] standard[s] for digital signatures, specified by the [European Telecommunications Standards Institute (]ETSI[)].[16 [The Difference Between an Electronic Signature and a Digital Signature]]

Evolution and legal implications
The eIDAS Regulation evolved from Directive 1999/93/EC, which set a goal that EU member states were expected to achieve in regards to electronic signing. Smaller European countries were among the first to start adopting digital signatures and identification, for example the first Estonian digital signature was given in 2002 and the first Latvian digital signature was given in 2006. Their experience has been used to develop a now EU-wide regulation, that became binding as law throughout the EU since the first of July, 2016.[17 [Regulations, Directives and other acts. [12th of December 2013]]] Directive 1999/93/EC made EU member states responsible for creating laws that would allow them to meet the goal of creating an electronic signing system within the EU. The directive also allowed each member state to interpret the law and impose restrictions, thus preventing real interoperability, and leading toward a fragmented scenario.[18] In contrast with the 1999 directive, eIDAS ensures mutual recognition of the eID for authentication among member states,[19] thus achieving the goal of the Digital Single Market.
[...]
In June 2021, the Commission proposed an amendment and published a recommendation.[23 [Commission proposes a trusted and secure Digital Identity for all Europeans. [3rd of June 2021]]][24][25]

[...]

European Self-Sovereign Identity Framework
The European Union started[...] creating an eIDAS compatible European Self-Sovereign Identity Framework (ESSIF),[...] but in many countries, users need to be Google or Apple customers to use eIDAS services.

EUTL
The European Union Trusted Lists (EUTL) is a public list of over 200 active and legacy Trust Service Providers (TSPs) that are specifically accredited to deliver the highest levels of compliance with the EU eIDAS electronic signature regulation.[39]

[...]"

Comment
We already discussed this subject matter of eIDAS of the first generation (eIDAS 1.0) and eIDAS of the second generation (eIDAS 2.0) a few times in the past and therefore point out once again that the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of fundamental and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services comprise our

This is the law, which is already the compromise, and the inofficial arrangement between the European Commission (EC) as representative for the member states of the European Union (EU), and C.S. and our corporation for opening our Ontologic System (OS) and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS.
None of those Trust Service Providers (TSPs) and Certification Service Providers (CSPs) has signed the set of legal documents of our SOPR.

We also already discussed the issue with the various plagiarisms and fakes of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontoscope (Os) in relation to the Google, Samsung, etc. Android smartphone and the Apple iOS iPhone and iPad.

The subject matter becomes even more actual, because the F.R.Germany demands digital photos for passports and identity cards from the 1st of May 2025, which are stored in what is wrongly and illegally called the Cloud, which again is based on our

We can only give the recommendation to a government to respect the moral right respectively Lanham (Trademark) right and copyright of an artist in general and refrain from infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation in particular.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Associated Signature Containers (ASiC): "Associated Signature Containers (ASiC) specifies the use of container structures to bind together one or more signed objects with either advanced electronic signatures or timestamp tokens into one single digital container.[2]

[Textbox:] Associated Signature Container Extended (ASiC-E) [...] Initial release 2011 [...]

Regulatory context
Under the eIDAS-regulation,[3] an associated signature container (ASiC) for eIDAS is a data container that is used to hold a group of file objects and digital signatures and/or time assertions that are associated to those objects. [...]
European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/1506 of 8 September 2015 laid down specifications relating to formats of advanced electronic signatures and advanced seals to be recognised by public sector bodies pursuant to Articles 27 and 37 of the eIDAS-regulation. [...]

[...]

Structure
The internal structure of an ASiC includes two folders:

Such an electronic signature file would contain a single CAdES object or one or more XAdES signatures. A time assertion file would either contain a one timestamp token that will conform to IETF RFC 3161,[7 [Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure - Time-Stamp Protocol (TSP)]] whereas a single evidence record would conform to IETF RFC 4998[8 [Evidence Record Syntax (ERS)]] or IETF RFC6283.[9 [Extensible Markup Language Evidence Record Syntax (XMLERS)]][2 [ASiC - Associated Signature Containers for eIDAS]][1]

How ASiC is used
One of the purposes of an electronic signature is to secure the data that it is attached to it from being modified. This can be done by creating a dataset that combines the signature with its signed data or to store the detached signature to a separate resource and then utilize an external process to re-associate the signature with its data. It can be advantageous to use detached signatures because it prevents unauthorized modifications to the original data objects. However, by doing this, there is the risk that the detached signature will become separated from its associated data. If this were to happen, the association would be lost and therefore, the data would become inaccessible.[2]
One of the most widespread deployments of the ASiC standard is the Estonian digital signature system with the use of multiplatform [...] software called DigiDoc.

[...]"

Comment
True experts recognize directly that an ASiC is based on the related functionality of our Ontologic File System (OntoFS) component inclusive compression, cryptography, certification system, and much more.
And the structure and the utilization of an ASiC resemble exactly a part of the explanation, which we publicized to show that the cryptocurrency Bitcoin is based on our OS, specifically our integration of the fields of Grid Computing (GC or GridC) and Volunteer Computing (VC or VolC), including the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) middleware system, which has been utilized for various Distributed Computing (DC or DisC) projects, and our OntoFS.

The publication of our OS with its integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic System Components (OSC) was made in 2006 and our "new standards Web 3.0, Web 4.0, and Web 5.0 (every user gets an id, that starts with onto#)" were explicitely listed in 2008, which happened years before the works on ASiC and eIDAS of the first generation (eIDAS 1.0) have been started around 2011 to 2013, and the publication of our detailed explanation about the foundation of Bitcoin was made in 2016, which happened years before the amendment of the eIDAS of the first generation (eIDAS 1.0) with the blockchain technique and the digital wallet resulting in the eIDAS of the second generation (eIDAS 2.0) has been suggested in 2018.

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Digital signature in Estonia: "[...]

History and usage
The first digital signature was given in 2002. A number of freeware programs were released to end users and system integrators. All of the components of the software processed the same document format - the DigiDoc format.[3]
[...]

Legislation
The nature and use of digital signature in Estonia is regulated by the Digital Signature Act. The Estonian parliament [...] passed the Digital Signature Act on March 8, 2000, and it entered into force on December 15, 2000.[8] [...] The Digital Signature Act has been superseded by the EU-wide eSignature Directive [officially electronic IDentification, Authentication and trust Services] (eIDAS) since 2016.[9] It should also mandate that rest of the EU member nations accept Estonian e-signatures amongst other countries e-signatures. The eSignature Directive also specifies that member nations should use and accept signatures in the Associated Signature Containers (ASiC) format.
[...]

[...]

International context
The Estonian digital signatures corresponds to the EU eIDAS (910/2014) with the strictest requirements (advanced electronic signature, secure-signature-creation device, qualified certificate, certification service provider (CSP) issuing qualified certificates).[10]

[...]"

Comment
Indeed, the existence of this digital signature of Estonia and its correspondence with the eIDAS of the EU are the reasons why we are looking very carefully on this matter of the Digital IDentity (DID or DigID), Decentralized IDentifier (DID or DecID), and so on.
But as one can easily see, certain parts of the eIDAS 1.0 and its amendment after 2016 resulting in the eIDAS 2.0 are in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

Conclusion
As shown above, initial suggestions and releases related to DigID, DecID, and eIDAS happened several years after the start of our OS with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic System Components (OSC), including the Ontologic File System (OntoFS), and the explicit listings of some of its features.
Therefore, we are absolutely sure that the integration of the

were also created with our OS.

The situation becomes even more crystal clear when our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) are added to this discussion, including what is called Cloud Computing of the second generation (CC 2.0), Cloud Computing of the third generation (CC 3.0), and Cloud-native technologies (Cnx) by us only for better understanding, which shows once again that we are definitely in the legal scope of the ... Ontoverse (Ov), as is the case with many other parts of our OS taken by of the European Commission (EC) and the member states of the European Union (EU) (e.g. (mobile) payment in real-time).

As a further clarification of the legal situation, we would also like to reiterate that existence, identity, and trust are essential aspects of our expression of idea titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., specifically our

which

• ontology (study of the nature of being or existence) and ontological relativism in general and
• theocentricism, Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), and also existentialism and anthropocentrism in particular,

This also shows once again that C.S. created a quite complex compilation, selection, composition, integration, unification, fusion, design, architecture, component, etc., and draws a crystal clear white, yellow, and red line, which has been discussed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and is incorporated in the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR, as can easily be seen in this context with the

of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.
Because we will not disassemble, dissect, deconstruct, or otherwise damage the integrity of our OS and our corporation, the terms and conditions of our SOPR do apply worldwide.
All or nothing at all. :)

By the way:

12:42 UTC+2
P.R.Chinese cars are much too cheap

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will adapt a relative share of the revenue in case an Ontoscope™ (Os) is sold too cheaply, because this reduces the revenue and therefore our relative share of the revenue.

We would also like to reiterate that actually the relative share of 7% for HardWare (HW) respectively Ontoscope Components (OsC) in case of a New Energy™ vehicle, specifically an Ontoscope with Wheels™ (OwW) or Ontoscope on Wheels™ (OoW), does not include the relative share of xy% for Ontologic System® Components, specifically the Integrated Wheeled Intelligence™ (IWI) with AutoBrain™, Hyper Connectivity™, including our AutoCloud™, and so on.

And the

are different licensee classs.

And 51%+49% Chinese win-win policy outside mainland China or higher in case of Joint Venture (JV) as damage compensations.

And Network HardWare (NHW), specifically equipment, device, card, chip, and module, and its assembling, by our corporation.

See also the notes

24.April.2025

12:30 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

"Duck, Duck, Daisy in the fake stock exchange", [C.S., Today]

16:44 UTC+2
Clarification

We found our Question Answering (QA) System (QAS) again. :D
In the last few years, we wondered from time to time where we have the QAS, because we are talking about it all the time and we are absolutely sure to have it integrated as well.
So we saw the trees and even knew war are in the forest, but we were not viewing exactly in the right direction. Eventually, it is so crystal clearly before our eyes, for example:

The SmartWeb project

And there is a lot more related and connected to these projects based on the fields of ontology, Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), Web Services (WS), and so on.

We also note that SmartKom is one of several projects of that time, which were inspired by (the work on) the creation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), such as in 1999

and in 2000

But as is the case with all the other highly suspicious activities at that time related to the fields of

none had the fields of

on their list with the exception of some very focused works and only added that since 2000.

Add to SmartKom and SmartWeb our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its coherent Ontologic Model (OM) integrating the

• Logic Programming (LP),
• Literate Programming (LP or LitP),
• foundation of Natural Language Programming (NLP),
• etc.,

• foundation of transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• foundation of bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• foundation of prompt engineering, shaping, configuring, or teaching,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• foundation of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• foundation of (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
• etc.,

And then add to them our Ontologic System (OS) with its other original and unique features, such as

So much about the true origin of what is wrongly called Foundation Model (FM), Large Language Model (LLM), chatbot, generative AI, Conversational AI, Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), agentic AI, and so on.

By the way:

19:30 and 21:20 UTC+2
Lenovo still in LaLaLand

Do not call it multi-agentic AI, holonic, agentic AI, bioholonic AI, AI phone, and whatsoever, but Ontologic System (OS), OntoBot (OB), and Ontoscope (Os) respectively

Just read the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

• 7% for Ontoscope Components (OsC) HardWare (HW),
• 17% for Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR) HardWare (HW) (e.g. Bionic, Cybernetic, Ontonic (BCO) Integrated Circuit (IC), including Neural Net Core (NNC), Neural Net Processor (NNP), and BCO Facility for SuperComputing (SC or SupC) (BCOSC) and SuperNetworking (SN or SupN) (BCOSN), including BCO Data Center (DC) (BCODC)),
• 17% or 27% for Ontologic System Components (OSC), and
• 17% or 27% for Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS),

or otherwise a fixed minimum fee according to list (to be publicized), or individual examination and assessment.
The utilization of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services is inclusive.
Royalties will be adjusted, because no double spending.

19:53 UTC+2
Oh, what ...? 44 quotes as evidence

We have gathered around 44 quotes of prominent persons so far, that are directly connected with our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) and Ontoscope (Os), and show that our OS and Os are sui generis works of art.

28.April.2025

20:20 UTC+2
SOPR approaching UL, IDAMS, OFinS test phase

Universal Ledger (UL)
IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS)
Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)

Everything has been publicated and discussed.
It is very complex. And ©.

29.April.2025

12:18 UTC+2
Website revision and update

*** Work in progress ***
We have reviewed the

also looked once again at the

and made some corrections and amendments wherever reasonable or required.
We are sure to have resolved the confusion and manipulation, and to be able to draw the white, yellow, or red line more correctly, precisely, and comprehensibly.

The devil was in the details.

For example, we noted that P2PVM could also by (mistaken as) a synonym for MSC. But for better differentiation, explanation, and understanding, we already began to use the terms

Furthermore, the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), Byzantine Quorum System (BQS), Byzantine-Resilient Replication (BRR) protocols and methods, the fields of MSC, smart contract transaction protocol, blockchain technique, Digital Ledger Technology (DLT), etc., and a specific DLT based on a blockchain, which again is based on BRR, which again is based on "a special efficient kind of multiparty secure computation [(MSC)] - threshold cryptography" (threshold public-key cryptosystem, multiparty threshold signatures), are prior art, but not the

and the integration of

• DLT based on Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) (e.g. multi-rooted DAG, homogeneous multichain, or similar data structures), and
• Byzantine Chain Replication (BCR) protocol or method,

or simply said all the really interesting and truly working stuff.

We integrated Multiparty Secure Computation (MSC), also known as "The God Protocols", Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM), blockchain technique, Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), Trusted Computing Base (TCB), etc. for our trustworthy worldview or Belief System (BS), trust machine, spirit, etc., Caliber/Calibre, and Ontoverse (Ov), which is art (e.g. science fiction, multimedia art), metaphysics, performance, etc. in the first place, and hence physics, science, optimization, etc. in the second place.
We also created a work of art respectively realized an overall expression of idea, compilation, selection, composition, integration, unification, fusion, design, architecture, component, etc., which is also utilized for the exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)).
Accordingly, what is wrongly called DWeb is a part of our successor of the WWW, Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0, and Ontologic Web (OW), and ultimately in the scope of ... the ontological argument or ontological proof, BS, Bionic, Cybernetic, Ontonic (BCO) reflection, augmentation, and extension, Caliber/Calibre, Ov, and OS.
infringement of rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically moral rights and copyrights of C.S.

Corda integration of human language respectively Natural Language Processing (NLP), etc. is always a part of our OS in the context of smart contract transaction protocol, blockchain technique, and Digital Ledger Technology (DLT).
also Ontologic Programming (OP), Ontologic Computing (OC) (e.g. transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI), and prompt enigineering, configuring, teaching), etc.

Once again, our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS) have been taken as source of inspiration and blueprint for virtually the whole ICT since December 1999 and October 2006 and most potentially before these dates by simple espionage, which shows that they are sui generis works of art, which implies moral rights resp. Lanham (Trademark) rights, and copyrights.
Therefore, always required

22:08 UTC+2
75% 'R' Us + 25% Meta (Facebook)

Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) enjoy certain benefits in relation to terms and conditions (e.g. royalties), facilities, technologies, goods, and services (see also the note List of damages summary of the 19th of January 2025).

30.April.2025

00:00 UTC+2
Question of the Day

"Method to the madness or madness to the method?", [C.S., Today]

18:05 UTC+2
Further steps

Alibaba, Huawei, ZTE, BYD Auto, and Co. have crossed the white, yellow, or red line in the last years and continued in ways in the last months so often and obvious that the situation is crystal clear from this point of view. Simply said, they have virtually signed and one of the remaining questions is the determination of the distributions or ratios of company shares, including share capital or capital stocks, including voting and prefered shares, or common and preferred stocks, of new Joint Ventures (JVs) to be established.

See also the

23:05 UTC+2
Palantir, NATO-Palantir contract highly complex

The overall situation with the company Palantir Technologies and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is highly complex and also very expensive.

At first we quote a publication of the company Palantir Technologies, which is about FedStart and was publicized on the 21st of June 2023: "Introducing Palantir FedStart: Helping SaaS companies do business with the Government
Each year, the U.S. federal government spends around $100 billion on software, representing a massive opportunity for your software company to make an impact  - that is, if you can gain access. Obtaining the requisite federal accreditation for [Software as a Service (]SaaS[)] solutions is time consuming, labor intensive, and costly.
Even if your company can afford the $1M+ price tag, the opportunity cost of the lengthy accreditation process is enormous, and it hits young, innovative companies, such as Large Language Model [(LLM)] and [transformative,] Generative[, and creative] AI startups, the hardest. Pursuing FedRAMP and Impact Level (IL) accreditations (explained in detail below) can require resource diversion  -  potentially for years -  away from product innovation, revenue growth, customer support, fundraising, and everything else necessary to scale a company. Palantir's own journey to FedRAMP and IL5 took over four years of navigating sponsorships and POCs, and ultimately 60 people from across 25 different teams working full-time for an entire year to achieve.

The Typical Accreditation Process  -  FedRAMP and IL5
The 2022 passage of the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Authorization Act requires FedRAMP Authorization for any cloud computing products or services processing unclassified federal information. Similarly, the Department of Defense via Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) defined the operating standards [for the authorization of Mission Critical National Security Systems], known as Impact Levels (ILs), for software providers seeking to offer their services in [what is wrongly and illegally called] government cloud environments.
Today, the onerous requirements to achieve FedRAMP or IL5 include the following:

Introducing Palantir FedStart
Palantir FedStart is the proverbial scissors that can cut through all this red tape. FedStart serves as an on-ramp to help deliver your SaaS products to the government at the speed of innovation. Your company's products are run within Palantir's secure and accredited environment  -  no need for a separate FedRAMP or IL5 accreditation. If you can containerize your software, you can use FedStart in weeks to sell as an accredited solution for quick product delivery and impact. FedStart unlocks FedRAMP Moderate and IL5, the security accreditations required to sell to civilian agencies and the Department of Defense, respectively. FedStart is on track to support FedRAMP High and IL6 within the next year.
Since 2003, Palantir has been a trusted partner of the U.S. Government, supporting critical federal missions with solutions deployed on-premises, in the cloud, and at the edge. Last year, our [illegal] cloud offering received its IL6 PA, joining the ranks of Microsoft [Azure] and Amazon Web Services as the only cloud providers with that distinction. In all of these environments, federal accreditation was a serious hurdle we faced. Over the last 20 years [(could only happen since the start of our Ontologic System (OS) in October 2006, which means 17 years)], we have developed technology  - Apollo and FedStart  -  that standardizes these deployments and ensures that every control is met by default, across all of our products, in every single environment. We are thrilled to now offer this technology for other companies' use, in order to bring the best commercial technology to bear in the federal government space.

The FedStart Difference: Zero to ATO in weeks
We're transforming how companies can meet FedRAMP's rigorous accreditation standards by enabling your company to leverage two decades' worth of Palantir investments in delivering software solutions to the U.S. Government.

Here's what that looks like:

LLMs and Generative AI
We're particularly excited about what FedStart means for government adoption of LLMs and Generative AI. The hurdles to accreditation impact not only the companies in the commercial sector seeking to do business with the government, but also the government itself and its ability to leverage cutting-edge technology that is available today. LLMs and Generative AI bring this problem into sharp relief: the companies most capable of delivering transformational value to the government are also the least equipped to navigate labyrinthine federal bureaucracy. These companies often operate with lean teams that haven't worked with the government before and don't have millions to spend, but they immediately understand how impactful their tech could be if deployed, from semantic search to operational copilots. We are actively partnering with companies in this space to bring such critical cutting-edge technology to the federal government.

Defense Tech
[...]
If accreditation is a blocker for your company, but you know your products could make an impact with government customers, contact us here."

Comment
We note that only these 3 companies have DIAS IL5 and IL6 and that they take part in a collaboration, conspiration, and corruption with each other and the governments against us.
It is also required for the logistics, supply chains, etc. of the army and the military industry.

We also note that entities are allowed to use prior art of all fields, such as the Polygon(al) Data(base) Model (PDM) and the model-reflective Arrow System (AS)
But without authorization respectively allowance and license by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), they are not allowed to perform and reproduce any part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its

• Foundational Model (FM),
• Foundation Model (FM),
• Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM) for transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, prompt engineering,
• Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Foundational Model (FM) or Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale,
• etc.,

• Logic Programming (LP),
• Literate Programming (LP or LitP),
• Natural Language Programming (NLP),
• etc.,

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
• prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,
• etc.,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• foundation of Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• foundation of (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI),
• etc.,

• Ontologic roBot (OntoBot),
• Ontologic Scope (OntoScope), and
• Ontologic Computer-aided technologies (OntoCax),

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV),

and also

as well as

including the integration of for example the PDM and the AS with the fields of

We would also like to remind the unknowing, unteachable, or unconscious entities, specifically in government, science, media, and industry, that the company Palantir Technologies is already blacklisted, and will not substitute our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies in whole or in part, for example with its

which are based on our

We also can already see by the marketing materials of Palantir that the company is very well knowing the true legal situation.

See also the notes

We quote a first report, which is about the Maven Smart System North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (MSS NATO) and was publicized on the 23rd of April 2025: "NATO agrees sole-source procurement of Palantir's Maven
[Image caption:] UK UAV pilots seen during NATO Exercise 'Steadfast Defender' in Poland on 26 February 2024. It is intended that data feeds from systems including UAVs will be better shared and integrated across alliance forces using MSS NATO.
NATO allies agreed to a sole-source procurement of Palantir's Maven Smart System NATO (MSS NATO) software, a representative of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) told Janes .
The procurement took only six months, one of the quickest in NATO's history. It is expected the system will be in use in May 2025. Maven was already "active and proven across nine different NATO nations contributing to real-world operations", the SHAPE representative added.
An official from NATO's Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (HQ SACT) told Janes on 23 April that Maven would be demonstrated at the alliance's Coalition Warrior Interoperability Exercise 2025 (CWIX25) in the second quarter (Q2) but that it would not be officially tested alongside other capabilities at that time for technical reasons. The official added that they look forward to deeper involvement from Maven during the 2026 NATO exercise cycle.
Maven is designed to connect multiple command, control, and communications (C3) systems so that the "data collected from older systems, third-party apps, and even custom solutions can be shared and leveraged in ways that were previously off-limits", according [...]""

Comment
See the comment to the second report quoted below.

We quote a second report, which is about the Maven Smart System North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (MSS NATO) and was publicized on the 23rd of April 2025: ""Palantir Stock Is Surging Today as NATO Embraces PLTR's Battlefield AI System
[...]

Palantir stock is ripping higher today, jumping nearly 4%. The company's AI-fueled momentum just got a major boost after NATO announced it would use Palantir's battlefield software. Investors are piling in after the company announced NATO officially adopted Palantir's battlefield AI system - a clear vote of confidence for its tech.

NATO Partnership Ignites Defense Optimism
The company said NATO has officially adopted its AI-driven military system. That's not just a new customer - it's a huge validator. Europe's defense demand is rising, and Palantir is now front and center. [...]
The deal also helps ease some trade fears. European governments have been uneasy about U.S. defense tech dominance. Palantir landing this deal shows it's still trusted on the global stage.

[...]"]

Comment
First of all, we remind every entity concerned that "Palantir took over the Pentagon's Project Maven contract in 2019 after [Alphabet (]Google[)] decided not to continue developing AI unmanned drones used for bombings and intelligence [due to moral and ethical reasons]."
We also add the information that "Project Maven was meant to revolutionize modern warfare. But the conflict in Ukraine has underscored how difficult it is to get 21st-century data into 19th-century trenches."
We also recall the report titled "Peter Thiel's data-mining company is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens. The scary thing? Palantir is desperate for new customers" and publicized on the 19th of April 2018.
Howsoever, we lifted this some months ago as a countermeasure to

as much as possible.

The short procurement time is highly unusual and thus highly suspicious and was only possible, because

They also arranged that the companies Amazon with Amazon Web Services and Microsoft with Azure, and also Palantir are between the states and us with our SOPR to

We are already knowing, where that scandal originated, but also clarify that this makes an allowance and licensing impossible without getting the control over all companies involved.
And this illegal situation will be resolved in the next future to our sole benefit, definitely and doubtlessly.

The member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have to respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

They trust 100% in the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., but refuse to ask for allowance and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of said oeuvre of C.S. and to partner with our SOPR.
We also do not know how the NATO can make such a contract with such a company and proven extremist endeavours directed against the free and democratic basic order, and violations of the human dignity, the rule of law, or/and the principle of democracy.
For sure, after the U.S.Army the whole NATO has breached the trust, exploited the goodwill, and infringed the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation deliberately.

The original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are neither a free and open lunch nor an "All You May Eat" buffet.
This is the law and the law is the compromise. :)

In wise foresight of the continuing disregard of the aforementioned rights and properties we publicized the note Use of our OS for military use prohibited of the 5th of January 2023.
Please keep in mind once again that no part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies will be provided by another entity.
For formal and legal reasons we have to make public that the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, including the Terms of Serivce (ToS) of our SOPR, demands the payment of triple damage compensations by the member states of the NATO as long as all legal deficits have not been cured, for example by the

We also point out once again that an army or another public service are in the licensee class 3 Public and federal authorities and institutes, and SOEs with ICT, non-industrial sectors with ICT, and industrial non-ICT sectors without ICT and the share of the related budget of an entity is

of the related budget and With All Discounts Granted (WADG), but only for Ontological Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), that are truly allowed to perform and reproduce on top of our OS.

Some more informations and facts in relation to Palantir:

The ratio of company shares Us 99.999999%:0.000001 Palantir has become even more reasonable, as is an increase of the ratios in case of Microsoft and Amazon to our benefit.
The last 2 remaining possibilities are now

Our SOPR also makes clear that a Joint Venture (JV) does not protect against fraudulent and even serious criminal actions.

A lot of individuals made a deal with the devil. The corruption has become so obvious that even corrupt prosecutors will not be able to interfere (anymore).
The 23rd of April 2025 marked another very dark day for the democracy, the rule-based law and order environment, and the free world.
Hopefully, our SOPR has not to observe more infringements.
So much about good will and good faith.