• Data Loss Prevention (DLP),
• Remote Browser Isolation (RBI),
• Web Application and API Protection as a Service (WAAPaaS),
• Next Generation Firewall (NGFW), FireWall as a Service (FWaaS), Cloud-Delivered FireWall (CDFW),
• Secure Web Gateway (SWG),
• Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB),
• Virtual Private Network (VPN),
• Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA),
• Thread Management, Prevention, Detection,

• Security Service Edge (SSE),

At first, we quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) and Security Service Edge (SSE): "A secure access service edge (SASE) (also secure access secure edge) is technology used to deliver wide area network (WAN) and security controls as a cloud computing service directly to the source of connection (user, device, Internet of things (IoT) device, or edge computing location) rather than a data center.[1] It uses cloud and edge computing technologies to reduce the latency that results from backhauling all WAN traffic over long distances to one or a few corporate data centers, due to the increased movement off-premises of dispersed users and their applications.[2 [The Future of Network Security Is in the Cloud. [30th of August 2019]]] This also helps organizations support dispersed users.
Security is based on digital identity, real-time context, and company and regulatory compliance policies, rather than a security appliance like a firewall. A digital identity may be attached to anything from a person to a device, cloud service, application software, IoT system, or any computing system.[2]
[...]

Overview
SASE combines [Software-Defined Wide Area Network (]SD-WAN[)] with network security functions, including cloud access security brokers (CASB), Secure Web Gateways (SWG), antivirus/malware inspection, [zero trust network access (ZTNA)/]virtual private networking (VPN), firewall as a service (FWaaS), [remote browser isolation (RBI),] and data loss prevention (DLP), all delivered by a single cloud service at the network edge.
SASE SD-WAN functions may include traffic prioritization, WAN optimization, [quality of service (QoS) assurance,] converged backbones and self-healing using artificial intelligence platforms [Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Big Data technologies (BDx) for Information Technology (IT) Operations (]AIOps[)] to improve reliability and performance.[4 [The evolution to Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) is being driven by necessity. [24th of October 2019]]][5]
WAN and security functions are typically delivered as a single service at dispersed SASE points of presence (PoPs) located as close as possible to dispersed users, branch offices and cloud services.[2] To access SASE services, edge locations or users connect to the closest available PoP. SASE vendors may contract with several backbone providers and peering partners to offer customers fast, low-latency WAN performance for long-distance PoP-to-PoP connections.[2]

History
The term SASE was coined [...] and described in a July 29, 2019 [...].
In 2021, [...] defined a subset of SASE capabilities, called secure services edge [Security Service Edge] (SSE).[8] SSE is a collection of SASE security services that can be implemented together with network services, like SD-WAN, to provide a complete solution.[8]

Characteristics
SASE principal elements are:

[Entities] promote a SASE architecture for the mobile, cloud enabled enterprise. Benefits include [(list point markers added)]:

Criticism
Criticism of SASE has come from several sources, including [International Data Group (]IDC[)] and [an information service provider] [...] Both analyst firms criticize SASE as a [...] term that is neither a new market, technology nor product, but rather an integration of existing technology with a single source of management.
[An information service provider] criticizes the lack of analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of the SASE concept and the likelihood that enterprises won't want to get all SD-WAN and security functions from a single vendor. [...] counters that service chaining of security and SD-WAN functions from multiple vendors yields "inconsistent services, poor manageability and high latency."[11]
IDC analyst [...] cites IDC's position that SD-WAN will evolve to SD-Branch, defined as centralized deployment and management of virtualized SD-WAN and security functions at multiple branch office locations.

[...]

Standards
MEF, originally known as the Metro Ethernet Forum, has become a next generation standards organization with a broad focus around software defined network and security infrastructure services for service provider, technology manufacturers, and enterprise network design. For the purpose of creating a future where interoperation between "best of breed" solutions is possible, MEF set out to create a number of industry standards that could be leveraged for training as well as integration. The MEF SASE Services Definition (MEF W117) [...] is based on current MEF Technical Specifications such as MEF 70.1 Draft Release 1 SD-WAN Service Attributes and Service Framework.
MEF released a Working Draft; "MEF W117 draft 1.01 SASE (Secure Access Service Edge) SASE Service Attributes and Service Framework" August 2021. [...]

See also

Comment
We note that SASE is also described as the

and also

while SSE is also described as the

Especially important are the characteristics of SASE, which include the fields of

and also the fact that the field of Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) is also related to the fields of

IDentity (ID) in this context always points directly to our Ontologic System (OS).

We also note that our

• CEFC, and
• Cnx,

  and also

• Ax, and
• ROx,

  as well as

• other fields,

and

• AIOps, artificial intelligence platforms, etc.,

were created with our Evoos and our OS by C.S..

We also note that SDN and SD-WAN are based on our Evoos and our OS (see the comment to the quote about the MEF consortium below), and therefore included in our

We also recall that

are essential parts of our

(see also the Images of the Day of the 5th of March 2025).
And what is described as Software-Defined Data Center (SDDC) and Software-Defined Branch (SCB) sounds like a utilization of our Ontologic Net (ON) and Ontologic Web (OW), while the term virtualized SD-WAN function is somehow nonsense, because the field of SDN is already about Network Virtualization (NV), specifically Network Function Virtualization (NFV) and Virtualized Network Function (VNF).

We also quote an online encyclopedia about the MEF consortium: "MEF, founded in 2001, is a nonprofit international industry consortium, of network, cloud, and technology providers.[1] MEF, originally known as the Metro Ethernet Forum, was dedicated to Carrier Ethernet networks and services, and in recent years, significantly broadened its scope, which now includes underlay connectivity services such as Optical, Carrier Ethernet, IP, along with overlay digital services including SD-WAN Services, as well as APIs to support orchestration of the service lifecycle (termed Lifecycle Service Orchestration, or LSO APIs based on MEF 55 Lifecycle Service Orchestration (LSO): Reference Architecture and Framework, for connectivity and digital services). [...]
The forum is composed of service providers, incumbent local exchange carriers, network equipment vendors, cloud providers and other related organizations, within the information and communications technology industry, that share an interest in connectivity services, digital services, automation, orchestration and standardization to pragmatically enhance and accelerate the industry's digital transformation. [...]
MEF comprises multiple technical committees to develop, evolve and promote the adoption of MEF standard services and interfaces. The forum regularly makes recommendations to, and collaborates with, existing standards bodies, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

History
MEF was preceded by the Ethernet in the First Mile Alliance (EFMA), also a nonprofit international industry consortium, which was established in 2001[2] to promote standards-based Ethernet in the first mile (EFM) technologies and products and position EFM as a networking technology for an access network.
[...]
In 2015, MEF voted to change its name to "MEF Forum" to reflect its expansion in setting standards for network virtualization [and Software-Defined Networking (SDN).[4 [MEF Grapples With the 'Chaos' Facing Service Providers. 29th of July 2015]]
In 2017, the International Multimedia Telecommunications Consortium (IMTC) was merged into MEF.[5 [MEF adds IMTC to committee taking on cloud applications. 29th of November 2017]]
[...]"

Comment
In the past, we already looked at the fields of

and concluded once again that a lack of prior art exists, but all the more attempts to manufacture prior art related with osVM, mVM, osV, osS, CC x.0, CFEC, and Cnx can be observed.

Evoos,

See also once again the

and the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

We also recalll that our Evoos with its reflective, cognitive, bionic, cybernetic, bioHolonic Multi-Agent System and also humanoid, and cybernetic self-reflection of C.S. already separates, decouples, or disassociates the

as can be seen once again with

This shows that Evoos also has the foundation of a cognitive network, which includes SDx.

We quote once again the document, which is titled "Using JavaSpaces to create adaptive distributed systems" and was publicized in 2002: "Abstract
JavaSpaces' support for asynchronous and loosely coupled communication can be used to simplify creation of advanced services in dynamic network-centric environments. In such environments clients and services come and go all the time and system-components may dynamically be added and removed. [...] [See also actor-based Dos TUNES OS.]
We present a space-based architecture where agents adapt to changing demands placed on the system by dynamically requesting their behavior from a JavaSpace. [See also Holonic Agent System (HAS).]
[...]
Jini [...] specifies a self-healing, service-oriented distributed architecture for dynamic environments. [...] [See also our microService technologies (mSx), including microService-Oriented Architecture (mSOA).]
[...]
ActorAgents are agents that are capable of playing different roles within a domain. A role represents specific behavior. The ActorAgent "containers" provide Jini and JavaSpaces middleware to the role "components" hosted. Some ActorAgents represent specific entities in the real world, like SMS gateways, WAP servers or Service Capability Servers (typically [Open Services Architecture (]OSA[)]/Parlay gateways, location servers etc.) and therefore play specific roles. ActorAgents capable of hosting more general service logic can exist in a pool, ready to do all sorts of work. We call these agents Generic ActorAgents. [...] [See also our integration of Multi-Agent System (MAS) and Holonic Agent System (HAS), actor-based Dos TUNES OS, which includes our ActorAgent, and our osVM, osV or containerization, microVM, osS, orchestration, etc..]
[...]
[...] Scalable Infrastructure (SI) [8 [Cisco Uses Jini Network Technology for Scalable Communication Framework. [1st of August 2002)]]] [...] started out as "...a project that would potentially allow an infinite number of devices/users to attach to a communications architecture and fulfill its mission under severe time restrictions in an almost real-time environment". The main idea behind SI is to organize a community of several JavaSpaces into a singe "virtualspace". [...]
[...] complex services [...] ServiceFrame [9 [Service-Centred Approach to Telecom Service Development. [2002]]] architecture [...] is a service execution framework that contains specific functionality for advanced telecommunication and Internet services. [...] ServiceFrame is layered on top of the more general ActorFrame and JavaFrame frameworks.
JavaFrame [10 [JavaFrame: Framework for Java-enabled modelling. [2000]]] is a Modeling Development Kit (MDK) which targets large, complex real-time systems written in the Java programming language. These systems are modeled as active objects (state machines and composites) that interact asynchronously. [...]
Complexity and composition is handled in ActorFrame by using an actor-abstraction. In ActorFrame, actors represent entities that can execute different behaviors, that is, play different roles. [...]
[...]
The ability of the space-based architecture's Generic ActorAgents to play different roles on demand greatly enhances adaptivity. [...] [See also as a Service (aaS), which is the successor of on demand, respectively what is wrongly and illegally called CC 2.0 and CC 3.0, CEFC, and Cnx of us.]

[...] References

Comment

were created with Evoos.
adaptive agent (see also Holonic AS), ActorAgent (see also Dos TUNES OS)

We also quote a document, which is about our CPS 2.0, is related to I 4.0, and was publicized in 2015: "[...]
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) [4 [Introduction to Embedded Systems: A CyberPhysical Systems Approach. 2011]] represent an amalgamation of computational and physical properties [...]. [...] blurring the distinction between the real world and the virtual one by using networked embedded devices [...]. [...] ubiquitous devices [...].
The core idea behind the amalgamating the physical and virtual (business) world is to seamlessly gather any useful information about objects of the physical world and use the information in various applications during the object's entire life cycle. [...]
[...] various motivations, hence various names such as Internet/Web of Things/Objects [5 [The Internet of Things. 2005]], Cooperating Objects [6 [The emerging domain of Cooperating Objects. 2011]], Cyber-Physical Systems [7 [Systems of Systems Engineering: Principles and Applications. 2008]], networked embedded systems[, Ambient Intelligence, Evernet,] etc. have emerged, [...] they all refer to the amalgamation of computational and physical properties [...].

[...]
Information Driven CPS Integration: [...] The service oriented architecture (SOA) empowered CPS may point us towards a potentially right direction. [...]
On-CPS Business Process Execution: [...] business processes that require data residing on a CPS could outsource that part of their functionality to run directly on the CPS or a collocated system (depending capabilities and characteristics e.g. communication, computation and possibly spatial constraints). [...]
Cooperating CPS: [...] CPS they will be able to cooperate, share information, act as part of communities and generally be active elements of a more complex system [17]. [...] self-management, self-optimisation, and self-healing [...]
Virtualization and Utility Computing for CPS: [...] virtualization of resources such as hardware platforms, operating systems, storage devices, network resources etc. [...]
[...]
SOA-ready CPS: [...]
[...]"

Comment
We also added to CPS 1.0, including MBAS or ImRS, the fields of os, Distributed operating system (Dos), osVM, mVM, osV, osS, NV, etc., mSx, ROx, Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC), Cloud-native technologies (Cnx), etc., and all the rest of Bionics, Bioholonics, Holonic Multi-Agent System (HMAS) or simply Holonic Agent System (HAS), Operations Management (OM), Quality Management (QM), Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Agent-Based Holonic Manufacturing System (ABHMS), eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension, Ontologic holon (Onton) (digital twin), and so on.

We also note the lack of prior art.

Conclusion

Distributed System, Cybernetic System, Bionic System, Cyber-Physical System, Bioholonic System, Cognitive System, Ontologic System

integrated

and used on the basic HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW) themselves by overall reflection.
Our views, informations, and reminders related to the fields of

and also regulations regarding the

• facilities
  • Data Center (DC),
  • common backbone, core network, or fabric,
• technologies
  • systems,
    • IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS),
  • platforms,
    • Marketplace for Everything (MfE),
• goods
• services
  • Trust as a Service (TaaS),
  • SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS),

and also their creations and integations are very well known and this list already says a lot even without further commentation.

Bionics, Cybernetics, Ontonics, existence, identity, multiDimensional, including 4D = 3D space and time, spatio-temporal, Caliber/Calibre, Ov and NR
Evoos is reflective, Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) integrates all in one, defines and thus always includes what is wrongly and illegally called cloud-first and cloud-native
every user gets ID and RFID was added as OS feature long before other entities understood our revival of the failed CPS, IoT, UbiC, NES, AMI, etc. with our CPS 2.0, IoT 2.0, UbiC 2.0, NES 2.0, AMI 2.0, and also IIoT, Industry 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, CybI, CybS

The spatio-temporal, identity-centric, carrier grade MAS, IDAMS, etc. in this context of the OS with its OSA, Ov and NR, etc. include foundational and essential parts of CASB, SASE, SSE, etc.
more with CPS, and infrastructure, facility, computer, and network viewed as (reflective) CPS themselves (e.g. MBAS or Immobot, Ax, AIOps, etc.)

Over many years, we also worked out the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) respectively the white, yellow, or red line, which in fact consists of many specific white, yellow, or red lines drawn along several criteria, including the artistical, societal, legal, technological, and economical ones, and separates the works of others from the works of art of us included in

drawn where others refused to take risk and act and also have core businesses, and freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the benefit of the public.

division of the

and also

The subdivisions into

and also

provide us with an interesting criterion for drawing the white, yellow, or red line in this specific field, and a short and a precise description of what we have already in mind with Service Providers (SPs) and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

The separation trick failed once again

as seen before with osV, osVM, mVM, osS, RoC, AC, SOA 3.0, SOC, mSOA, SDN, SD-WAN, NFV, VNF, CNF or CnNF, GridC, CC 2.0, CC 3.0, CEFC, CnC, CPS 2.0, OM, FM, GPL, ULLM, MMM, CAI, RAG, Search Engine (SE), social, etc.

No loophole exists to takeover the control of parts of our OS with its OSA, and Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), etc..
Like in the others cases, such as CC x.0, Cnx, CPS, IoT, Crypto, etc., Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Fuzzy Logic (FL), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS), Swarm Intelligence (SI), etc.) no alternatives to common facilities (e.g. backbone, core network, or fabric), technologies, goods, and services (e.g. aaS) included in the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, including what is illegally and wrongly called

Here the (new) reality catches up with them again.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) will not tolerate any appropriation, competence wrangling, turf war, and other activities to interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine, and harm said rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
If an industry standard violates the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, then it is void in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov).

And about evolution and reflection we do not need to talk anymore.

Our SOPR does not want to regulate too much in relation to freedom of choice, innovation, and competition pro bono publico==for the benefit of the public, but not for the benefit of some kleptomaniacs and other incompetent entities, and some parts of OS remain exclusive for legal reasons (rights and properties of C.S.) and economical reasons (royalties would be too high far above 30% of revenue)
SPs have own competences, works, rights, properties, etc., but also have to utilize the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and hook their facilities, technologies, goods, and services into them.

They all have alternatives to our Evoos and our OS with the Interconnected network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW), Internet of Things (IoT), Virtual Private Network (VPN), Virtual Private Server (VPS), Bionics, Java Jini, Web Services (WS), etc..

We already discussed the (main) contractor regulation in relation to the provision of facilities or services (basically computing power, data storage, VPN, VPS, Web Services (WS), on-demand, etc., physical media (wired and wireless), and so on) for customary costs minus our royalties.
But all those facilities, backbones, core networks, or fabrics, etc. belong to the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies anyway, and illegal materials have to be transfered.
The same with same with those illegal ecosystems, which all interfere with, and also obstruct, undermine and harm the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. in general and our Ontologic EcoSystem (OES) in particular.

See also the notes

04.July.2025

18:34 UTC+2
SAP is 27th so we talk about the dirty 50 at least

As we always said, we

because we have no reason to do so, but

Obligatory actions:

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

19:29 UTC+2
Tokenization of stocks, etc. part of OEx of OFinS

Ontologic Financial System (OFinS)
Ontologic Bank (OntoBank)
Ontologic Exchange (OEx, OntoEx, or OntoExchange)
Universal Ledger (UL)

"Tokenization is the process of issuing digital representations on a blockchain network of publicly traded securities, real world assets or any other form of value."
"tokenization of every financial asset", specifically bonds and stocks
"put Wall Street on a blockchain", trading of tokenized public stocks, etc.

We also quote a marketing news, which is about the so-called mirror token: "[...]
[...] Mirror Tokens, a new type of tokens tied to the performance of the world's most valuable private companies. [...]
[...]
The tokenized asset mirrors the performance of [a private company] shares in the event of a potential future IPO, acquisition, or other liquidity event. While the token does not grant equity or ownership in [a private company] and is not affiliated with the company**, it provides uniquely similar economic exposure to direct share ownership typically reserved for the world's largest institutional investors and ultra high net worth individuals and families.
The initial purchase price will be based on publicly-available transaction data, and [a crypto crap company] intends to make the tokens tradable on a regulated secondary market after a lock-up period [...]. The asset will be offered using existing U.S. registration exemptions, with initial purchases capped at $5,000 to maximize the number of purchasers and demonstrate the future of fractionalized, tokenized access to private markets.
[...]
"This is a big step forward on our quest to make the private markets more accessible and liquid - globally," [...].
[...]

About [a crypto crap company]

**This prospective offering, security, token, and related aspects are wholly unaffiliated with [a private company] [...]. The Reference Company has not endorsed, participated, authorized, encouraged, agreed, or in any other way participated in this offering or the [a private company] Token. Investing is incredibly risky - do so at your own risk. When you purchase a security (and consequently the [a private company] Token) you are not purchasing an interest in the Reference Company, and the token is not itself a right or entitlement to any share of the Reference Company. Holders of the tokens only have such economic rights as are described in this offering. Holders are contracting only with, and may only seek recourse against, the issuing company - here [a crypto crap company X] LLC.
[...] Private investments are risky and illiquid, never invest more than you can afford to lose, carefully seek the advice of professionals to understand the risks associated. Not FDIC or SIPC insured.
[...]

The investment product "Mirror Tokens" is deemed a security under United States securities laws which imposes complex parameters and restrictions on the offering, sale, and resale of securities to US persons - particularly non-accredited investors. There will be limits on the number of securities a non-accredited US person may purchase, if any, and there will be restrictions on the resale or listing of the securities, if any, in the US and other jurisdictions. In other countries, laws and regulations governing the initial offering of tokens, securities or otherwise, and their subsequent listing and trading remain uncertain and may shift frequently. Private securities are highly risky and speculative. Never invest more than you can afford to lose. At least some of the terms of this offering are novel and, as such, because of the newness there may possibly be additional risks and uncertainties. Consult with your trusted advisors and conduct your own diligence before investing.
This investment involves securities that reference a private company that may, at some point in the future, pursue an initial public offering (IPO). There is no guarantee that the company will ever conduct an IPO. The company has not filed, announced, or committed to an IPO, and no IPO has been scheduled. Liquidity is not guaranteed; you may not be able to sell your investment for an extended period, if at all. The securities being offered are private, illiquid, and restricted, and are not listed on any public exchange. Any representations or implications of future value, returns, or liquidity related to a potential IPO are speculative and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment.
This is being made available under rule 206 of Regulation CF: (1) A "reservation" involves no obligation or commitment of any kind; (2) No money or other consideration, is being solicited and if sent will not be accepted; (3) No investment commitments can be accepted and no funds can be received unless the issuer files a Form C with the SEC and starts accepting investments."

Comment
We also add that the reservertion in form of a token in form of a security respectively tokenized reservertion or mirror token is sold, or better said, transacted over online payment systems and crypto exchanges.

Claiming to "make the private markets more accessible and liquid" and then clarifying that it is "illiquid" sounds like another fraud.

We think that the so-called mirror token is illegal, because it violates the competition rights and other rights of a private company. For example, such a security interferes with, and also obstructs, undermines, and harms the potential and the realization of a real IPO, as the issuer already acknowledges with the legally required warning notice about a related speculation.

07.July.2025

19:20 UTC+2
Broadcom, VMware, etc. blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.
We already anticipated what the business strategy of the company Broadcom is, when it purchased the company VMware in November 2023, and since 2024 every member of the addressed and interested public can see it as well.

But like any other entity, Broadcom alone or in collaboration respectively serious criminal conspiracy with other entities is definitely not entitled to change the

specifically by

• Bionic, Cybernetic, and Ontonic (BCO) Facility for SuperComputing (SC or SupC) (BCOSC) and SuperNetworking (SN or SupN) (BCOSN), including the BCO Data Center (DC) (BCODC) of the backbone, core network, or fabric of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which collectively constitute our Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), respectively of said infrastructures, and
• SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS),

which ultimately means

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

10.July.2025

08:00 and 19:11 UTC+2
100% - 100% - 100%

courts - insolvencies - takeovers
self-checkmate - ball is rolling - game over

They all have alternatives with the Distributed operating system (os), Interconnected network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW), Internet of Things (IoT), Virtual Private Network (VPN), Virtual Private Server (VPS), Bionics, Cybernetics, Java Jini, Web Services (WS), on-demand, etc., etc., etc., but not our visions, creations, expressions of idea, compilations (collections and assemblings), selections, compositions, connections, combinations, integrations, unifications, fusions, and also foundations, designs, architectures, components, applications, and so on, specifically in relation to our original and unique, personal, scientifically fictitious, unforeseeable and unexpected, copyrighted sui generis works of art titled Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS), and no copying (no editing, no adaption, no derivation, no implementation, no etc.) in whole or in part, no interference with, and also obstruction, underming, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, no abuse of market power, no blackmailing, no conspiracy, no corruption, no expropriation, no democratization (no transition of regime from legal exclusivity or authority to elitist control, also known as democracy or so), no capriciousness, no, nix, nada, nothing this and that.

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. vs. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (1977) and Nos. 75-1203 and 75-1202 (1977):
Using a copyrighted story for selling hamburgers and pommes frites is like using a copyrighted ontological argument or ontological proof, Belief System (BS), self-reflection, etc. and Ontologic System (OS) with Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic Model (OM), etc. for selling HardWare (HW) and SoftWare (SW), and also providing services.

"As the [U.S.American] Supreme Court recognized, the damage provision of the Copyright Act aims at more than just compensation of the copyright owner. It also served to prevent unjust enrichment by the infringer and to deter infringement."
Furthermore, damages or profits provide poor remedy to discourage

Therefore, one has to "consider the value of use by the defendants of plaintiffs' work", which results in the demand for the payment of at least the greater or higher of the damages, profits, and values, the latter as some kind of "in-lieu (of)==in place (of)" damages.
"The value of use [...] is defined as a part of the reasonable value of plaintiffs' work. It amounts to a determination of what a willing buyer would have been reasonably required to pay to a willing seller for plaintiffs' work. That is a different measure than the determination of defendants' actual profits from the infringement."
Correspondingly, we get the following conclusion and extension regarding complete relief:
The value of use [...] is defined as a part of the reasonable value of plaintiffs' corporation. It amounts to a determination of what a willing buyer (e.g. investor) would have been reasonably required to pay to a willing seller (e.g. proprietor) for plaintiffs' company shares. That is a different measure than the determination of defendants' actual damages from the infringement.

Obviously, the stock markets clearly determine the reasonable value (e.g. market capitalization) of our corporation, which also reflects the value of use by defendants of our corporation respectively the actual damage to/suffered by C.S. and our corporation due to the frustrated momenta, thwarted follow-up opportunities, and so on in addition to the infringement, conspiracy, corruption, wire fraud, investment fraud, etc..
Compare and align also with for example the legal case F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 344 U.S. 228 (1952) and other legal cases related to this matter.

And the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) clearly states that the payment of damage compensations, the higher of ..., decides about the further allowance and licensing. :)

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

19:52 UTC+2
SOPR already has basic principles

Neither C.S. nor our SOPR have a need to voluntarily sign the so-called code of practice of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) of the European Union (EU).
But our SOPR already has basic principles and therefore already provides a code of conduct, which is comparable to said code of practice and more than sufficient.

C.S. does not need to sign anything, which is unconstitutional respectively basicly unlawful, due to the freedom of expression. Period.
If plagiarists sign said code of practice is more or less irrelevant, because what they sign in this relation is void in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) anyway and thus they cannot provide legal certainty at all.

By the way:

11.July.2025

04:10 UTC+2
JV with core business of SOE

A Joint Venture (JV) with a State-Owned Enterprise is established under the Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM), Transaction Fee Model (TFM), and Main Contractor Model (MCM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and comprises only its core business and its scope of tasks delegated to it as a subsidiary of our corporation, specifically in relation to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

Needless to say, being a Joint Venture Partner (JVP) of our corporation, specifically of our SOPR, provides tremendous possibilities and advantages, including legal security, exclusivity, confidentiality, information access, economic security, scale effect, and so on.

12.July.2025

06:45 and 21:41 UTC+2
Success story continues and no end in sight

Feedback Neural Network (FNN) (feedback from Cybernetics, so to say Cybernetic Neural Network (CNN or CybNN); not to be confused with Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)) includes Self-Correction via Reinforcement Learning (SCoRe) (as created, claimed, and explained by us before), Artificial Neural Network Model (ANNM) with chain-of-thought respectively train of thought (as created, claimed, and explained by us before), Reasoning Language Model (RLM) (as created, claimed, and explained by us before), etc., and is based on ... TaTa ... reflection, and also ... TaTa ... general purpose model-level reflection (LeeMate. Checkmate Bruce Lee style), as well as ... TaTa ... analogous to human metacognition or "thinking about thinking" (reflection from cognition, so to say Cognitive Neural Network (CNN or CogNN)).

The members of the addressed and interested public have now confirmed unanimously that FNNM, including RLM, is based on the creation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and Ontologic Model (OM), and our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic roBot (OntoBot), as also claimed and explained by us before in relation to our Foundational Model (FM), Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM), Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM), Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Large Lanuage Model (LLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), FM or Language Model (LM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale, etc..

So much once again about substantial similarity and even sameness in expressions (of idea) shown by the idea and expression analysis, abstractions test, extrinsic test (external criteria and analysis (dissection), comparison, expert testimony), and intrinsic test (observation and impression of the average reasonable reader and spectator, also circumscribed as the eyes and ears of the ordinary lay person).
Specifically the intrinsic test demonstrates another time that the separation trick with the dissection of a whole original work of art into separate and supposedly legal parts, does not work in case of compilation, integration, architecutre, and so on, because an analytic dissection is not appropriate for showing illicit copying (unlawful apppriation) of the expression, but the overall observations and impressions of the members of the addressed and interested public of the total concept with its look and feel are relevant.
In this respect, all larger companies are profoundly erring, as always explained by us before. And about fair use (e.g. Application Programming Interface (API), benefit for the public, etc.) we even do not discusse anymore.

Big fish, Big game, Big win 'R' Us of the 21st of November 2023
Oh, our mistake ... TaTa ...

By the way:

21:20 UTC+2
Cognition AI, Cognition Labs blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

13.July.2025

23:30 UTC+2
Clarification

*** Work in progress - some links and statements missing ***
In relation to the note Success story continues and no end in sight of the 12th of July 2025 (yesterday), we wanted to quote a related publication about the subject matter. But after looking at subject matters of others and us, which are directly connected with the first subject matter, we got the opinion that another more complete discussion is required in relation to the integration of subsymbolic and symbolic systems

specficially about the fields of

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Hybrid Intelligent System (HIS) in the initial of the 18th of October 2005: "Hybrid intelligent systems denote a combination Artificial intelligence techinques such as:

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Hybrid Intelligent System (HIS) in the version of the 2nd of November 2006: "In software programming, hybrid intelligent system denotes a software system which employs, in parallel, a combination of AI models, methods and techniques from such artificial intelligence subfields as:

with symbolic reasoning methods, using

From the cognitive science perspective, every natural intelligent system is hybrid because it performs mental operations on the both, subsymbolic and symbolic levels."]

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Hybrid Intelligent System (HIS): " Hybrid intelligent system denotes a software system which employs, in parallel, a combination of methods and techniques from artificial intelligence subfields, such as:

From the cognitive science perspective, every natural intelligent system is hybrid because it performs mental operations on both the symbolic and subsymbolic levels. For the past few years, there has been an increasing discussion of the importance of A.I. Systems Integration. Based on notions that there have already been created simple and specific AI systems (such as systems for computer vision, speech synthesis, etc., or software that employs some of the models mentioned above) and now is the time for integration to create broad AI systems. Proponents of this approach are researchers such as Marvin Minsky, Ron Sun, Aaron Sloman, Angelo Dalli and Michael A. Arbib.
An example hybrid is a hierarchical control system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning.
Intelligent systems usually rely on hybrid reasoning processes, which include induction, deduction, abduction and reasoning by analogy.

See also

[...]

References

Comment
Just add C.S. to the list and also recall our clarifications related to this field, specifically about the

which all have some mysterious similarities with our Evoos.

See also the highly suspicious document titled "RCS: A Cognitive Architecture for Intelligent Multi-Agent Systems" and publicized in 2004, which also reflects our Evoos Architecture (EosA).

And the field of Soft Computing (SC)

At least, we have 2 works, which are truly relevant prior art, and another crystal clear evidence that all relevant fields are included in our Evoos and our OS, indeed.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Neural-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence (NSAI) in the preliminary version of the 22nd of December 2020: "Redirect page
Redirect to: Hybrid intelligent system"]

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Neural-symbolic Artificial Intelligence in the initial version of the 12th of August 2022: "Neuro-symbolic AI attempts to integrate neural and symbolic AI architectures in a manner that addresses strengths and weaknesses of each, in a complementary fashion, in order to support robust AI capable of reasoning, learning, and cognitive modeling. As argued by [somebody][1 [Knowledge Infusion: In Pursuit of Robustness in Artificial Intelligence. 2008]] and many others,[2 [Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: Contributions and Challenges. 2015]] the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of sound symbolic reasoning and efficient (machine) learning models. [(line break added already in this version)].
[Person 2], similarly, argues that: "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning."[3[, 14, 15] [2020]], and in particular: "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol-manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only machinery that we know of that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol-manipulation."[4 [2019]
[Person 3],[5 [2020]] [person 4],[6 [2022]] and [person 5][7 [2022]] have also argued for a synthesis. Their arguments are based on a need to address the two kinds of thinking discussed in [... a] book, Thinking Fast and Slow [(2011)]. [It] describes human thinking as having two components, System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast, automatic, intuitive and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is the kind used for pattern recognition while System 2 is far better suited for planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best models the first kind of thinking while symbolic reasoning best models the second kind and both are needed.
[Person 6] describes research in this area as being ongoing for at least the past twenty years,[8 [2020]] dating from his 2002 book on neurosymbolic learning systems.[9 [Neural-Symbolic Learning Systems: Foundations and Applications. [2002]] A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic reasoning has been held every year since 2005 [...].
In their 2015 paper, [...] [person 6] et al. argue that:
The integration of the symbolic and connectionist paradigms of AI has been pursued by a relatively small research community over the last two decades and has yielded several significant results. Over the last decade, neural symbolic systems have been shown capable of overcoming the so-called propositional fixation of neural networks, as McCarthy (1988) put it in response to Smolensky (1988) [...]. Neural networks were shown capable of representing modal and temporal logics ([...] 2006) and fragments of first-order logic ([...] 2008; [...] 2009). Further, neural-symbolic systems have been applied to a number of problems in the areas of bioinformatics, control engineering, software verification and adaptation, visual intelligence, ontology learning, and computer games. [2 [Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: Contributions and Challenges. [2015]]]

Kinds of Approaches
Approaches for integration are varied. [A person 3]'s taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures, along with some examples, follows:

These categories are not exhaustive, for example, they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, [2 persons] presented a more fine-grained categorization that considered, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic or not, and if it did, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic.[13 [Dimensions of Neural-symbolic Integration - A Structured Survey. [2015]]]

As a Prerequisite for Artificial General Intelligence
[Person 2] argues that "... hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient",[[3,] 14[, 15] [2020]] and that there are: [(line break removed)] "... four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence:

Open Research Questions
Many key research questions remain, such as:

Implementations
Some specific implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches are:

[...]

See also

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Neural-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence (NSAI): "[...]
[A plagiarist 7],[6 [[World AI Cannes Festival (]WAICF[)]2025: Why neurosymbolic AI is the future of trustworthy AI (WAICF 2025 Keynote). [13th of February 2025]]] [person 3],[7 [2020]] [person 4],[8 [2022]] and [person 5][9 [2022]] also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in [... a] book Thinking, Fast and Slow [(2011)]. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are needed for a robust, reliable AI that can learn, reason, and interact with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Such dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been worked on since the 1990s, both in AI and in Cognitive Science, by multiple researchers.[10[, 22] [Robust reasoning: Integrating rule-based and similarity-based reasoning. [1995]]]

Approaches
[...]

These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, [2 persons] presented a more fine-grained categorization that considered, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and if it did, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic.[16] The 2005 categorization and [person 3]'s taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article.[12] Recently, [plagiarist 8] argued that Graph Neural Networks "... are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing"[17 [2020]] since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions."[18 [2022]]

Artificial general intelligence
[...]

This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s.[21 [Computational Architectures Integrating Neural and Symbolic Processes. [1994]]][[10,] 22] [Robust reasoning: Integrating rule-based and similarity-based reasoning. [1995]]]

History
[Some plagiarists] described research in this area as ongoing at least since the 1990s.[23 [2020]][24 [2002]] At that time, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic [subsymbolic] AI were popular.
A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence.[25] In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized.[21]

Research
Key research questions remain,[26 [Hybrid systems and connectionist implementationalism. [2001]]] such as:

Implementations
Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include:

See also

[...]"]

Comment
Well, totally manipulated bull$#!+ with the exceptions of the

The referenced book about a 2-layer system is just a repetition of the works titled

See also the

At this point, our fans and readers should be able to easily recognize the plagiarisms and fakes based on our Evoos with its Evoos Architecture (EosA), Ontologic Model (OM), and all its other original and unique parts described in The Proposal (December 1999), and our OS with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic File System (OntoFS), and all its other original and unique parts (October 2006), as well as our Belief System (BS), Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI), and so on.
See also the Investigations::AI and Knowledge management of the 19th of August 2009 to find all relevant and interesting things.

In fact, we already said many years ago, for example in the Clarification of the 2nd of June 2012, that "C.S. has added to this Metaverse concept with the start of [our Ontologic System (OS) ...]

• our superset of an approach in the field of DataBase Management Systems (DBMSs) called Not Only SQL (NOSQL), and
• the blockchain technique (see also the smart contract transaction protocol),

The illegal plagiarism and fake of one of the very well known Ontotrolls also comprises the unauthorized use of our

• Logic Model (LM of LogM),
• Logic Probabilistic Model (LPM) or Probabilistic Logic Model (PLM),
• Capability and Operational Model (COM),
• Foundational Model (FM),
• Reflective Artificial Neural Network Model (RANNM), Feedback Neural Network Model (FNNM),
• Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM),
• Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM), including
  • Foundation Model (FM),
  • General Purpose Language Model (GPLM),
  • Global Language Model (GLM),
  • Large Language Model (LLM),
  • Reasoning Language Model (RLM),
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM), including
  • Foundation Model (FM),
  • Large MultiModal Model (LMMM),
  • MultiModal Large Language Model (MMLLM),
• etc.

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, including
  • generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI)
• prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc., or being more precise,
• forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc. an ANNM by so-called prompt engineering (here also called question-answering problem over a context) respectively
• modifying, forming an ontological frame (here also called context) by adding an (agent, user) ontology (here also called questioning as part of prompting) (see also model-level reflection and interaction, and ontological relativism, including Cybernetic Logic (CL or CybL) (e.g. Contextual Logic (CL or ContextL), formalized context or formalized contextual dependence, or context transcendence formalization, or context as formal object, etc.)) respectively
• cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, operation, etc.,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) (also related to Question Answering (QA) System (QAS) and connected with CAI), including
  • Graph-Based Retrieval Augmented Generation (GBRAG),
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI) or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,
• etc.,

and also our

• Ontologic Net (ON),
• Ontologic Web (OW), and
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also
• SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS),

which belong to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.
Obviously, that activity constitutes a crystal clear infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and other illegal actions. Correspondingly, our SOPR has already blacklisted all those Ontotrolls last year.

The U.S.American patent in relation to the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), or being more precise, the XAI subfield of eXplainable Neural Network (XNN) does not include the term hypergraph at all, but only the terms wavelet, fractal, fuzzy logic, and knowledge graph network. It might be void due to several legal deficits in relation to our original and unique works of art, which is prior art in this case.

We also looked around a little and found out that at least one plagiarist is conducting wire fraud and investment fraud in addition to copyright infringement and so on.

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reflection (Artificial Intelligence) and Feedback Neural Network (FNN) in the initial version of the 5th of February 2025: "Reflection in artificial intelligence refers to methods and techniques that enable neural networks (often large language models (LLMs)) to examine, evaluate, and correct their output (the intermediate output produced may be hidden). By incorporating phases of self‐assessment or internal deliberation, reflective AI aims to improve reasoning accuracy, reduce errors (such as hallucinations), and enhance interpretability. It is often referred to as "test-time compute".

Introduction
This internal "thinking" about the steps that lead to those answers is analogous to human metacognition or "thinking about thinking" and is believed to help AI systems approach tasks that require multi-step reasoning, planning, and logical thinking. This feedback can take place either after a full network pass and decoding to tokens, or continuously in latent space (the last layer can be fed back to the first layer). In LLMs, it make use of spetial token to start and stop the reflection before giving a final output (e.g. <thinking>).

Background
Traditional neural networks tend to operate in a feedforward manner, providing outputs based solely on statistical correlations learned during training. However, limitations in handling complex reasoning tasks have spurred the development of methods that simulate internal deliberation. Techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting encourage models to generate intermediate reasoning steps, thereby providing a form of self-reflection that can improve performance on tasks including arithmetic, commonsense reasoning, and more.

Techniques
Training
This includes the addition of templates for reasoning chains within the dataset, which helps the model learn to generate coherent and logical responses based on structured reasoning.

Prompt engineering
Chain-of-thought
According to Google Research, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a technique that allows large language models (LLMs) to solve a problem as a series of intermediate steps before giving a final answer. In 2022, the Brain team of Google also claimed that chain-of-thought prompting improves reasoning ability by inducing the model to answer a multi-step problem with steps of reasoning that mimic a train of thought.[1 [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. [31st of October 2022]]][2] Chain-of-thought techniques hypothetically allow large language models to overcome difficulties with some reasoning tasks that require logical thinking and multiple steps to solve, such as arithmetic or commonsense reasoning questions, according to announcements from Google and Amazon.[3][4]
[...] When applied to PaLM, a 540 billion parameter language model, Google claims that CoT prompting significantly aided the model, allowing it to perform comparably with task-specific fine-tuned models on several tasks, achieving state-of-the-art results at the time on the GSM8K mathematical reasoning benchmark.[1] According to Google, it is possible to fine-tune models on CoT reasoning datasets to enhance this capability further and stimulate better interpretability.[5][6]

An example of a CoT prompting:[7]
Q: {question}
A: Let's think step by step.

As originally proposed also used by Google,[1] each CoT prompt included a few Q&A examples. This made it a few-shot prompting technique. However, according to researchers at Google and the University of Tokyo, simply appending the words "Let's think step-by-step",[7] has also proven effective, which makes CoT a zero-shot prompting technique. OpenAI claims that this prompt allows for better scaling as a user no longer needs to formulate many specific CoT Q&A examples.[8]

In-context learning
In-context learning, refers to a model's ability to temporarily learn from prompts. For example, a prompt may include a few examples for a model to learn from, such as asking the model to complete "maison → house, chat → cat, chien →" (the expected response being dog),[9] an approach called few-shot learning.[10]
In-context learning is an emergent ability[11] of large language models. It is an emergent property of model scale, meaning that breaks[12] in downstream scaling laws occur, leading to its efficacy increasing at a different rate in larger models than in smaller models.[13][14] Unlike training and fine-tuning, which produce lasting changes, in-context learning is temporary.[15] Training models to perform in-context learning can be viewed as a form of meta-learning, or "learning to learn".[16]

Self-consistency decoding
Self-consistency decoding[17 [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. [1st of March 2022]]] performs several chain-of-thought rollouts, then selects the most commonly reached conclusion out of all the rollouts. If the rollouts disagree by a lot, a human can be queried for the correct chain of thought.[18 [Active Prompting with Chain-of-Thought for Large Language Models. [1st of February 2023]]]

Tree-of-thought prompting
Tree-of-thought prompting generalizes chain-of-thought by prompting the model to generate one or more "possible next steps", and then running the model on each of the possible next steps by breadth-first, beam, or some other method of tree search.[19 [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. [17th of May 2023]]] The LLM has additional modules that can converse the history of the problem-solving process to the LLM, which allows the system to 'backtrack steps' the problem-solving process.

Prompting to disclose uncertainty
By default, the output of language models may not contain estimates of uncertainty. The model may output text that appears confident, though the underlying token predictions have low likelihood scores. Large language models like GPT-4 can have accurately calibrated likelihood scores in their token predictions,[20] and so the model output uncertainty can be directly estimated by reading out the token prediction likelihood scores.

Benchmarks
Reflective models generally outperform non-reflective models in most benchmarks, especially on tasks requiring multi-step reasoning.
However, some benchmarks exclude reflective models due to longer response times.

History
Early developments
In 2022, the Brain team of Google also claimed that chain-of-thought prompting improves reasoning ability by inducing the model to answer a multi-step problem with steps of reasoning that mimic a train of thought.[21 [see [1]][22] Chain-of-thought techniques hypothetically allow large language models to overcome difficulties with some reasoning tasks that require logical thinking and multiple steps to solve, such as arithmetic or commonsense reasoning questions, according to announcements from Google and Amazon.[23][24]

o1-preview and o1
In early 2024, OpenAI introduced the o1-preview model, which showcased the power of chain-of-thought prompting by generating intermediate reasoning steps. Shortly thereafter, a refined version-simply known as o1-was released, incorporating lessons learned from the preview stage.

Llama 3B scaling test-time compute[25]
On December 16, 2024, an experiment using a Llama 3B model demonstrated that by scaling test-time compute, a relatively small model could outperform a much larger Llama 70B model on challenging reasoning tasks. This result highlighted that improved inference strategies can unlock latent reasoning capabilities even in compact models.

o3 and o3-mini
The OpenAI o3 model was announced on December 20, 2024.
Notably, o3-mini and o3-mini-high and o3 (Deep Research mode) was released before the emergence of DeepSeek's R1 offering, and it further refined internal deliberation and self-correction processes.

Gemini

DeepSeek

Qwen

Integration with search capabilities
In December 2024, Google introduced Deep Research as part of their Gemini model,[27 [Try Deep Research and our new experimental model in Gemini, your AI assistant. 11th of December 2024]] enhancing its ability to generate insights from multi-step reasoning tasks.
On January 25, 2025, DeepSeek launched a feature in their DeepSeek R1 model, enabling the simultaneous use of search and reasoning capabilities, which allows for more efficient integration of data retrieval with reflective reasoning processes.
Subsequently, OpenAI's o3-mini model gained the ability to combine search and reasoning in a unified process.
On February 2, 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research,[28] a tool that integrates reasoning and web search in a unified workflow, allowing users to perform complex research tasks that require multi-step reasoning and data synthesis from multiple sources.

Applications
Reflective techniques have been applied to improve performance in various domains:

Criticism and challenges
Despite promising advances, reflective AI faces several challenges:

See also

[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reflection (Artificial Intelligence) and Feedback Neural Network (FNN) in the version of the 20th of April 2025: "Reflection in artificial intelligence, notably used in large language models, specifically in Reasoning Language Models (RLMs), is the ability for an artificial neural network to provide top-down feedback to its input or previous layers, based on their outputs or subsequent layers. This process involves self-assessment and internal deliberation, aiming to enhance reasoning accuracy, minimize errors (like hallucinations), and increase interpretability. Reflection is a form of "test-time compute", where additional computational resources are used during inference.

Introduction
Traditional neural networks process inputs in a feedforward manner, generating outputs in a single pass. However, their limitations in handling complex tasks, and especially compositional ones, have led to the development of methods that simulate internal deliberation. Techniques such as chain-of-thought prompting encourage models to generate intermediate reasoning steps, thereby improving their performance in such tasks.
The feedback can take place either after a full network pass and decoding to tokens, or continuously in latent space (the last layer can be fed back to the first layer).[1][2] In LLMs, special tokens can mark the beginning and end of reflection before producing a final response (e.g., <thinking>).
This internal process of "thinking" about the steps leading to an answer is analogous to human metacognition or "thinking about thinking". It helps AI systems approach tasks that require multi-step reasoning, planning, and logical thought.

Techniques
Increasing the length of the Chain-of-Thought reasoning process, by passing the output of the model back to its input and doing multiple network passes, increases inference-time scaling.[3] Reinforcement learning frameworks have also been used to steer the Chain-of-Thought. One example is Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), used in DeepSeek-R1,[4] a variant of policy gradient methods that eliminates the need for a separate "critic" model by normalizing rewards within a group of generated outputs, reducing computational cost. Simple techniques like "budget forcing" (forcing the model to continue generating reasoning steps) have also proven effective in improving performance.[5]

Types of reflection
Post-hoc reflection
Analyzes and critiques an initial output separately, often involving prompting the model to identify errors or suggest improvements after generating a response. The Reflexion framework follows this approach.[6][7]

Iterative reflection
Revises earlier parts of a response dynamically during generation. Self-monitoring mechanisms allow the model to adjust reasoning as it progresses. Methods like Tree-of-Thoughts exemplify this, enabling backtracking and alternative exploration.

Intrinsic reflection
Integrates self-monitoring directly into the model architecture rather than relying solely on external prompts, enabling models with inherent awareness of their reasoning limitations and uncertainties. This has been used by Google DeepMind in a technique called Self-Correction via Reinforcement Learning (SCoRe) which rewards the model for improving its responses.[8]

Process reward models and limitations
Early research explored PRMs to provide feedback on each reasoning step, unlike traditional reinforcement learning which rewards only the final outcome. However, PRMs have faced challenges, including computational cost and reward hacking. DeepSeek-R1's developers found them to be not beneficial.[9][10]

[...]

Models
[...]

See also

[...]"

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reflection (Artificial Intelligence) and Feedback Neural Network (FNN): "Feedback neural network are neural networks with the ability to provide bottom-up and top-down design feedback to their input or previous layers, based on their outputs or subsequent layers. This is notably used in large language models specifically in reasoning language models (RLM). This process is designed to mimic self-assessment and internal deliberation, aiming to minimize errors (like hallucinations) and increase interpretability. Reflection is a form of "test-time compute", where additional computational resources are used during inference.

Techniques
[...]

Types of reflection
[...]

[...]"

Comment
Well, totally manipulated bull$#!+ with the exceptions of ....

At first, we note the additional information:

We also note the change from the phrase "Reflection in artificial intelligence" to the designation "Feedback Neural Network", feedback like in Cybernetics and Cognition, and also our Evoos and our OS.

We also note once again a total lack of prior art and instead a lot of plagiarisms and fakes of our original and unique work of art.
Interestingly, if no truly relevant prior art can be presented, then C.S. also created this field of FNN as part of the creation of our Evoos.
Furthermore, due to the strong connection with the fields of HIS, NSAI, and RLM our claims regarding the creation of LLM and RLM are even confirmed as well.

We also made the following observation:
In a first step from the initial version to the version of the 20th of April 2025, the

In a second step from the version of the 20th of April 2025 to the actual version, the

Such an observation can also be made in relation to the webpage about RLM (see the comment to the related quote below).

The observations in relation to the editing of the webpages about FNN and RLM show that in both cases at first informations were added to mislead the public, but then activities were conducted to remove the strong causal links between the fields again, specifically to arrive at a position having only pure subsymbolic ANN.
But obviously, this is not a legal loophole at all, because the

• Foundation Model (FM),
• General Purpose Language Model (GPLM),
• Global Language Model (GLM),
• Large Language Model (LLM),
• Reasoning Language Model (RLM),
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM),
• Large MultiModal Model (LMMM),
• Large Action Model (LAM),
• Logic Probabilistic Model (LPM) or Probabilistic Logic Model (PLM),
• etc.

and their

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reasoning Language Model (RLM) in the initial version of the 27 of January 2025: "Reasoning language models are artificial intelligence systems that combine natural language processing with structured reasoning capabilities. These models are usually constructed by prompting, supervised finetuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) initialized with pretrained language models. [(This are techniques also discussed in relation to reflection in artificial intelligence, specifically Feedback Neural Network FNN, which were created with our Evoos and our OS.)]

Prompting [Ontologic Computing (OC), including prompt engineering, etc.]
[...]

Chain of Thought [(CoT) prompting]
Chain of Thought prompting (CoT) prompts the model to answer a question by first generating a "chain of thought", i.e. steps of reasoning that mimic a train of thought.[2] It was published in 2022 by the Brain team of Google on the PaLM-540B model.[3] In CoT prompting, the prompt is of the form "<Input> Let's think step by step", and the model would respond with a chain of reasoning steps, ended with an answer: Input → Step 1 → Step 2 → ... → Step n → Answer [Step 1 to n is] Reasoning chain
Similarly, Tree of Thought prompting generalizes CoT by prompting the model to generate one or more "possible next steps", and then running the model on each of the possible next steps by breadth-first, beam, or some other method of tree search.[4] Similarly, Graph of Thought generalizes CoT so that the reasoning steps form a directed acyclic graph.[5]
Self-consistency decoding performs several chain-of-thought rollouts, then selects the most commonly reached conclusion out of all the rollouts.[6] If the rollouts disagree by a lot, a human can be queried for the correct chain of thought.[7]

Retrieval-augmented generation [(RAG) related to Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI) and all included in Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot)]
[...]

Tool use
[...]

Supervised finetuning
[...]

Applications
Prompt engineering was discovered in GPT-3 as "few-shot learning",[24] which began a period of research into "eliciting" capacities of pretrained language models. It was then found that a model could be prompted to perform CoT reasoning, which improves its performance on reasoning tasks.

Benchmark
[...]

See also

[...]"]

We quote an online encyclopedia about the subject Reasoning Language Model (RLM): "Reasoning language models (RLMs) are large language models that have been further trained to solve multi-step reasoning tasks.[1] These models perform better on logical, mathematical or programmatic tasks than traditional autoregressive LLMs, have the ability to backtrack, and employ test-time compute as an additional scaling axis beyond training examples, parameter count, and train-time compute.

History
2024
[...]

2025
[...]

Benchmarks
[...]

Drawbacks
Computational cost
[Reflective] Reasoning models require significantly more test-time compute than non-reasoning models. On the AIME benchmark, reasoning models were 10 to 74 times more expensive[16] than non-reasoning counterparts.

Generation time
Reflective reasoning increases response times, with current models taking anywhere from three seconds to several minutes to generate an answer. As reasoning depth improves, future models may require even longer processing times.

Models
[...]

See also

[...]"]

Comment
Well, totally manipulated bull$#!+ with the exceptions of ....

We also made the following observation:
In a first step from the initial version to the version of the 27th of January 2025, the

In a second step from the version of the 27th of January 2025 to the actual version, the

• Generative pre-trained transformer
• Neuro-symbolic AI
• Automated theorem proving,

but also added with the hyperlink to

Conclusion
Obviously, the whole stuff originated much earlier in the 1990s and 2000s and what has been presented since around 2007 merely comprises new designations, implementations, or optimizations of old ideas and expressions of idea to mislead the members of the addressed and interested public.
For example, neural-symbolic system is just only integrated, unified, and hybrid connectionist symbolic system.

We also note that publications about RAI, RLM, and NSAI quoted above are only some very few years or even only some few months old, which proves once again that we acted earlier and the others are following us.

We also note once again the total lack of prior art in contrast to a lot of plagiarisms and fakes of our original and unique works of art, which proves once again that C.S. created the original and unique works of art.

We also note that a considerable overlap with the subjects reflection, metacognition, subsymbolic and symbolic system, and hybrid intelligent system exists, which corresponds to a significant extend with the related essential parts of our Evoos and our OS created by C.S..

As already documented in the past again and again, substantial similarity and even sameness has been shown extrinsically and intrinsically between the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and newer works, which provides sufficient evidence to prove the legally required causal link with said original and unique works of art and confirms that they are sui generis works of art on the one hand and have been used as sources of inspiration and blueprints without authorization on the other hand.

Neither the idea-expression dichotomy, nor the fair use, and the Scène à faire==Scene to be made or Scene that must be done, or genre doctrines, or any other exclusion from the copyright law or other laws are effective. Sufficient alternatives exist, specifically other expressions of idea, compilations, selections, compositions, integrations, unifications, fusions designs, architectures, components, and so on, so that others have to create their own works of art, but not merely copying, unlawfully appropriating, and modifying our works of art to arrive at plagiarisms and fakes, which are not considered new and transformative and hence derivative works of art.

Eventually, we got once again the confirmation that our Evoos with its EosArchitecture and our OS with its OSArchitecture already integrate all in one, and our Evoos and our OS constitute sui generis works of art.

The latter also shows

because they are implementing our Evoos and our OS since we have them created, presented, and discussed.

One can also easily see that a lot of options (how, expression) are available for realizations (what, idea), so that no legal issue with the idea-expression dichotomy exists, in total contrast to the substantial similarit yand even sameness, and that all other actors are violating our rights and properties.

Proper referencing respectively citation with attribution is always required as holds true for all the other legally required actions in relation to the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

15.July.2025

11:30 UTC+2
Ah, what ...? Microsoft, Alphabet (G), OpenAI, Windsurf, Cognition AI

All entities concerned have no allowance and license for their illegal plagiarisms and fakes of essential parts of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS).
The substantial similarity and even sameness of their illegal plagiarisms and fakes with our

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

is totally obvious not only for a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA), also known as expert, but also other members of the addressed and interested public, including the average reasonable reader and spectator, also circumscribed as the eyes and ears of the ordinary lay person.

The company Cognition AI was valued 2 billion U.S. Dollar in 2024 only 6 months after its foundation.

The company Microsoft collaborated with the company Cognition AI in 2024 in relation to parts of our OS (see the list above).

The company OpenAI was close to purchase the company Windsurf for 3 billion U.S. Dollar in May 2025.

The company Alphabet (Google) invested 2.4 billion U.S. Dollar in the company Windsurf on the 12th of July 2025, but under rather unusual and even incomprehensible terms and conditions (e.g. employment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other important persons of Windsurf, and only a non-exclusive license contract for Windsurf's illegal plagiarism and fake of the related parts of our OS (see the list above)).

Cognition AI purchased Windsurf on the 14th of July 2025, just 2 days later.

And Alphabet (Google) did not know that?

And how does this work with the financing of that first start-up buying that second start-up?

And what do the members of that zoo or circus think who we are?

11:30 and 22:20 UTC+2
U.S.American DoD contracts in Ov are void

In the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), which is defined by the

we do make the rules, including the Terms of Service (ToS) with its License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Therefore, the U.S.American government with its Department of Defense (DoD) is not in the legal position to infringe the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, specifically by granting a contract for the performance and reproduction of the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. in whole or in part, such as our

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

which belong to our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Likewise, in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) a Service Provider (SP) does not get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), which belong to the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and therefore has to pay damage compensations, the higher of apportioned royalty, profit, and value, which at least amounts to triple damage compensations equivaling the triple of the amount awared illegally by the DoD to an SP, transfer all illegal materials, and do other legally required actions.

That activity seems also to be one of the anticipated cases of corruption.

Our SOPR will also impose additional measures to deteriorate such fraudulent and even serious criminal activities.

11:30 and 23:15 UTC+2
82% 'R' Us + 18% Meta (Facebook)

The company Meta (Facebook) has reduced or even stopped the work on its illegal Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM) based on our Ontologic Model (OM), because it did not improve very well anymore.
We have seen the same technical issue with the illegal Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Models (ANNGPMs), inlcuding Foundation Models (FM), of the companies OpenAI and X.AI Corporation (X (Twitter)).

It is also discussing if its provision of essential parts of our Evoos and our OS as illegal Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and illegal online services respectively Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) truly provides advantages, despite we already showed that it only provides a great many of very serious legal and economical issues.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

11:30 and 23:15 UTC+2
X.AI Corporation (X (T)) heading from 60 to 100%

No matter what the responsible entities of the companies Tesla Motors, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceExiT), and X.AI Corporation (X (Twitter)) are creating and conducting for magic shows and financial multilevel schemes they have to comply with the

Or simply said so that even aliens from South Africa are able to comprehend the facts of real reality in this observable universe, including gravity, we do make the rules in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), which means that we do not talk about ordinary Electric Vehicles (EVs), batteries, solar panels, backyard rocket science, illegal crypto currency, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) vaporware anymore.

Therefore, no legal Grok for Government and no other illegal things and actions will exist, but only fraud and crime.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

16.July.2025

08:20 UTC+2
To be deal, or not to be deal, ...

... that is the question. Ay, there's the point.

We quote a first report, which is about our Ontologic System (OS) and the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies, and was publicized today: "[A company] to spend hundreds of billions to build AI data centres
[A company and plagiarist]'s founder [...] has said [a company] will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on building huge AI data centres [Data Center (DC)] in the US.
[...]
[A company] has invested heavily in efforts to develop what it called "superintelligence"[, or what is called General Artificial Intelligence (GAI) or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and also related to the so-called SuperBrain (SB or SuperB) and Global Brain (GB), or being more precise, an essential part of our Evoos and our OS] - technology that it said could out-think the smartest humans.
The company, which has made most of its money from online advertising, generated more than $160bn in revenue in 2024[, which were generated by providing our Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) on our Ontoscope (Os) without allowance and license, and for which the company has to pay considerable damage compensations to C.S. and our corporation].
In a post on [a company] platform, [a company] said [a company] was building several multi-gigawatt clusters, and that one cluster [...].
[...]
[...] "[...] to build superintelligence" and that the centres had been given "names befitting their scale and impact".
[...]
There are at least 10,000 data centres around the world hosting the cloud - remote servers that store digital information - with most of them located in the US, followed by the UK and Germany.
AI-driven data centres [...].
[...]"

Comment
First of all, we do need some minor clarifications.
An AI-driven Data Center (DC) is based on our Autonomic Computing technologies (ACx), but is not an AI DC or DC for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The first one is the management and operation of the DC by utilizing AI and the second one is the utilization of the DC for AI technologies, goods (e.g. applications), and services.

We quote a second report, which is about our Ontologic System (OS) and the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies and was publicized today: "[A president] Hails [...] A.I. Infrastructure Investments at [...] Summit
[...]
President [...] to praise companies for investing [...] in data centers and other energy projects [...], aimed at accelerating the development of artificial intelligence.
"Today's commitments are ensuring that the future is going to be designed, built and made right here in [...] the United States of America," [...].
The event [...] brought together [...] administration officials and executives from technology and fossil fuel companies [...].
[...]"

Comment
That report connects even more directly the fields of AI DC and AI-driven DC with AI infrastructure, and so on.

But more importantly, we got once again crystal clear evidences how a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA), also known as expert, but also other members of the addressed and interested public, including the average reasonable reader and spectator, also circumscribed as the eyes and ears of the ordinary lay person (e.g. politician, president, reporter, etc.), view and understand foundational and essential parts of the original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically the ON, OW, OV respectively Ov and NR, and the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities (e.g. DC), technologies, goods, and services.

If the U.S.America continues with the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, then it is losing much more than a technological race, which we have already won. It is loosing a foundational and essential part of basic right, democracy, and freedom.

And at this point, we would really like all those dirty fellows of the lying press to provide us this court-proof legal support and immensely huge treasure trove of arguments over the last 2 decades, specifically in relation to the intrinsic test for showing substantial similarity and even sameness. :þ

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

and the other publications cited therein.

18.July.2025

14:11 UTC+2
Fed should issue CBDC crypto dollar

The U.S.American Federal Reserve System (Fed) should issue its U.S.American Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which is urgently required for protecting and stabilizing the financial system, specifically against the developing Wildcat Banking 2.0 (see the Free Banking Era from 1836 to 1865) and the unregulated markets for all kinds of investments (see the 1920s), and also would be a nice legacy project of J.H. Powell.

A regulation without rules and control is no regulation.

23:30 UTC+2
Ignorantia legis non excusat

In principle, the following applies:

If at all, investors are only entitled to a normal increase in value, but not the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

The issuers of financial products are aware about the true legal situation, specifically the investment banks, other large banks, large insurances, large asset management companies, large venture capital firms, and so on.

Investors have to sue issuers of financial products, media companies, and other bad actors, if they feel misled or betrayed by them.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

23:40 UTC+2
Assessment of damages by banks and Co.

In principle, the following applies:

We are continuing with the gathering of evidences in case of the infringement of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation by investment banks, other large banks, large insurances, large asset management companies, large venture capital firms, and so on, which already resulted in a very massive set, and have begun to select the right approaches and methods to show the interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights by large investment banks, and also to assess the payment of damage compensations by them.
For sure, they will pay, transfer company shares, and act in other legally required ways, or face serious problems.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

19.July.2025

01:51, 03:50, and 08:49 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We have suggested a collective joint venture with the companies Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet (Google) in the first step, and other companies affected in the following steps, which has more the character of a merger due to damage compensations, restitution, and so on.
And according to our principles we will do, what we have promised, which in this case is sending a relatively short letter (before action) to present our case and give the other parties the possibility to answer constructively, present alternative solutions, and show their commitment for further joint activities.

But we have made crystal clear that we have terms and conditions, which include the legally required minimum and therefore are not discussible, and also got so much new evidences, which show that a much more different legal situation existed before we made said suggestion and since then much more activities were done by others and much more and better assessments of the damages and the resulting damage compensations were done by us, so that in the end we have a very different foundation for our argumentation and decision making.

We also made clear that we do not believe anymore that a viable solution can be found in relation to legal and financial matters of companies, third parties, and us.
Everything is intertwined: The payment of damages and royalties reduces the profits and values of companies and the returns of shareholders, and affords a public disclosure, a written license contract, an admission of rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation, an admission of violation of said rights and properties, etc., etc., etc..
Everybody, who thinks that we will enter a verbal agreement about a waiver of said rights and properties, and also unresolveable intertwined dependancies, a complete control over our works of art, a much too low licensing fee for a far too far-reaching control, including giving said rights and properties away as Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and so on, must be declared as a mentally disabled, mildly said.
That scandal will surface, if entities, such as governments, research facilities, media companies, banks, and other entities concerned are not already aware or even involved, and we do not think that all investing entities will accept that their investments are only worth 0 to 10%.
While the one group will have to explain their actions, the other group will take actions and sue.

Certain entitites should not expect a miracle or even a victory. They are all so deep in the muddy mess that we do have to drain the swamp before getting to the salvageable matter.
Ultimately, without a fundamental and comprehensive legal clarification, nobody will get out of this number. Is not it Gates, Zuckerman, Musk, Altman, Hueng, and Co.?
And a formal procedure will begin in this year as soon as possible.

By the way:

14:07 UTC+2
OS in Ov means OS and not os
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM, and Car

If an entity uses the acronym OS in relation to a facility, technology, good, and service in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), such as an Ontoscope on Wheels™ or Ontoscope with Wheels™, iTablet on Wheels™ or iTablet with Wheels™, also called a PC on Wheels™, PC with Wheels™, Mobile Device on Wheels™, Mobile Device with Wheels™, and Smartphone on Wheels™, and Smartphone with Wheels™, then it has to use the term Ontologic System as its expansion and the meaning of its expansion, but not the term operating system.
In this relation, we also recall once again that we use the term operating system in an artistical sense and metaphorical way, for example operating system of mind, operating system of universe, and operating system of evolution, which is also described as a wordplay or overloading of for example philosophical and technological designation by us on the one hand and is not unusual in the arts on the other hand.

Likewise, if an entity uses the term chip-to-cloud architechture in relation to a facility, technology, good, and service in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), then it has to use the term Ontologic System Architecture and the acronym OSA.

Furthermore, the following description is wrong, misleading, and illegal: "It is the first in-car infotainment [or in-vehicle infotainment (IVI)] system to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) from [a company 1] and [a company 2], combining multiple AI agents in one system."
The facts are that the Intelligent Agent System (IAS) of both companies is (based on) our Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic Computing (OC) (e.g. transformative, generative, and creative Bionics), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), Ontologic Holon (Onton), etc. of our Ontologic System (OS), and our OS is based on our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and could even be viewed as the next generation of our Evoos, which is already based on the fields of Multi-Agent System (MAS) and Holonic Agent System (HAS) since 1999.

Moreover, the following description is wrong, misleading, and illegal: "[manufacturer]UX Virtual Assistant OntoBot
With generative artificial intelligence (AI) [(genAI)] Ontologic Computing (OC), the new [manufacturer]UX Virtual Assistant is based on the classic and iconic OntoBot, recognizes emotions and can react accordingly. As it gets to know you, it learns from your routines and develops proactive recommendations. The [...] avatar well adapted Onton offers colour-coded animations, that express moods and show empathy."
The fact is that the uncorrected description is not only artistically, legally, and syntactically wrong, but also technologically and semantically, because it merely mixes as much as possible illegal marketing terms introduced and used by other plagiarists for their illegal plagiarisms and fakes of our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS) to mislead the members of the addressed and interested public even more by suggesting and emphasizing a different and wrong common understanding and use.
The Emotion Machine (EM) architecture is a sequel to the work titled "The Society of Mind" and publicized 1988, but both are not based on our

• Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM),
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMM),
• etc.,

• 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),
• Autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AAI or AutoAI),
• Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• AI-powered Search Engine or AI Search Engine (AISE)
• AI-powered chatbot or AI chatbot,
• AI-powered assistant or AI assistant, or intelligent assistant,
• Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AAI or AgAI),
• Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI), or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,
• etc.

"The Society of Mind" is based on the fields of Bioholonics and Multi-Agent System (MAS), but not on the field of Holonic Agent System (HAS) in contrast to our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), which has integrated all of them, while the EM and other works in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Ambient Intelligence (AmI) (see also the Cognition and Affect (CogAff) architecture), and multimedia of the Massachusseetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the U.S.America are based on a highly suspicious transfer of information about our Evoos from our OntoLab to the MIT and was only presented around 6 years after our Evoos in 2005 as the work tilted "EM-ONE: An Architecture for Reflective Commonsense Thinking", when we were already far ahead of the scientists involved, and our OC, OB, etc. belong to our OS, which integrates all in one by its OSA.

We also demand to delete, or alternatively, correct the other misleading information immediately, such as the following: "Large icons and a simpler interface create an engaging and truly immersive user experience for drivers and passengers with real-time graphics powered by the [a company 3] 3D engine."
The field of Virtual Reality (VR) is truly immersive, but not a 3-Dimensional Graphical User Interface (GUI), which can be generated by all major basic video game or computer game software frameworks as part of our Ontologic Scope (OSc or OntoScope) Ontologic System Component (OSC).

If a manufacturer refuses to comply with the

then our SOPR will take crystal clearly discussed legal measures, which comprise the options to increase the royalties by up to 300% and to refuse the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our original and unique, worldwide protected Ontologic System (OS), also known as blacklisting.

22.July.2025

04:01 UTC+2
SOPR will provide mandatory OB, AGI, SI, GB

Like the fields of what is wrongly and illegally called

the fields of what is wrongly and illegally called

are also part of the one and only Ontologic System (OS) with its

• Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot),

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

Our Ontologic System (OS) includes our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos), which both belong to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., which again

for example with the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

04:10 UTC+2
SOPR gets 100% of OpenAI

The Clause in the contract between the companies Microsoft and OpenAI is obsolete, because OpenAI has not rights and properties in relation to our Evoos and our OS at all, but Microsoft will have them as a Joint Venture Partner (JVP) respectively subsidiary of our corporation.

Formally, OpenAI gets some money for the remaining company shares.
Legally, OpenAI has to pay considerable damage compensations to us, which are much higher than its royalty unpaid, profit generated, and value increased illegally, but we will not pay anything to any entity for the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
Eventually, 100% of OpenAI will be controlled by our SOPR.

See also the notes

23.July.2025

19:40 UTC+2
Some thoughts and notes

We quote and translate a report, which is about an initiative and was publicized on the 10th of February 2025: "[...]

Post dated 11.02.2025 [...]
That is the mantra in current LLM sales psychology.
First, one has to invest billions in ever larger training infrastructure to train ever larger LLM models with ever more data, and at some point it goes "puff [peng kaboom]" and out comes a really smart Large Language Model, with an understanding of the world, a sense of irony and sarcasm, but completely without hallucinations.
In other words, the currently error-prone, hallucination-prone, and non-deterministic operating model Large Language Model heals itself, so to speak, simply by more and more training data, i.e. through scaling.
I am extremely skeptical.
This seems more like the principle of hope, because every other technology in the history of mankind has become more difficult to master through scaling.
There is currently little evidence that these planned billion-euro investments will lead to more stable models at all. On the contrary, the hallucinations become more subtle with larger models such as gpt4o, and thus actually only more difficult to detect, because even large models continue to work according to the same, under-complex basic principle: which word in a sentence comes next statistically?
There is a complete lack of understanding and logic.
Applied to aircraft construction, the AI industry's current approach would be: if you just keep on enlarging a Bleriot monoplane, you will eventually end up with a[ Boeing airliner].
And as private investors are gradually beginning to wave goodbye (there are already many billions in the industry from people who are now _very_ nervous), the AI bros are increasingly looking for new victims among those who manage billions in taxes[, also known as politicians]. As is currently the case in France[, U.K., F.R.Germany, U.S.America, Middle East, etc.].
Sorry if this comes across as hostile to technology, but only the crypto bros are actually gambling on their investors/victims worse than the AI bros. In contrast, the business plans for electric jets with their sunk millions are a) small change and b) highly realistic.
But there is one good thing: when this bubble finally bursts, the rest of us will finally get cheap hosting."

Comment
See the section 8 Lösungsansatz==Solution approach of The Proposal.

The pure Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM), including Large Language Model (LLM), has also become saturated in the last months, which means they do not improve anymore, but make the foundational problems of that approach even more difficult to solve.
See also the note

We always explained that exactly this conclusion was the reason why we did not follow up on that approach when creating our Evoos, but even corrected the direction while writing The Proposal in some few weeks around March to July 1999.

Furthermore, all improvements of this subsymbolic, connectionist, neural, probabilistic, and statistic brute force approach based on Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in the last year have proven even more that Foundation Model (FM), Large Language Model (LLM), Feedback Neural Network Model (FNNM), Reasoning Language Model (RLM), etc. are based on our sui generis works of art Evoos and OS.

And this comment of a reader to a report also shows that they all are talking about our Evoos and our OS, as can be seen with the

We also note that another initiative has taken place 2 days ago, which is also about a certain operating system, or better said, Ontologic System (OS), which is

and reflects our actions:

and thus it also shows once again the {status} as sui generis work of art, revolution, Renaissance 2.0, etc..

We quote and translate report, which is about the second-quarter fiscal 2025 of the company Samsung and was publicized on the 8th of July 2025: "Samsung with unexpectedly sharp drop in profits
Sluggish sales of high-performance memory for Artificial Intelligence (AI) caused Samsung to suffer an unexpectedly sharp drop in profits in the second quarter. According to preliminary figures, operating profit fell by 56 percent to 4.6 trillion won (around three billion euros), the South Korean electronics group announced today."

Comment
Well, the rule is quite simple: no memory chips means no processors and no data centers.

We quote and translate a report, which is about an investment of the company Oracle and was publicized on the 15th of July 2025: "Oracle expands AI activities
On Tuesday, it was announced that the US software giant Oracle intends to expand its cloud infrastructure in the greater Frankfurt area and significantly increase capacities for AI applications. The main aim is to build data centers with servers, storage, and network devices here.
Oracle says it plans to invest a total of two billion U.S. Dollar in Germany over the next five years in order to meet the growing demand for artificial intelligence applications and cloud infrastructure. The sum of the equivalent of 1.7 billion euros will flow largely into the Rhine-Main region."

Comment
Well, just only 400 million U.S. Dollar for improvements of facilities utilized for its core business and for parts of our OS licensed by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) each year is not a big commitment.

We quote and translate report, which is about an investment of the subsidiary Goolge of the company Alphabet and was publicized on the 15th of July 2025: "Google is not building own data center in Berlin-Brandenburg
The Alphabet subsidiary Google is not building an own data center in the greater Berlin-Brandenburg area after all. Press spokesman [...] confirmed a report in [a news paper], according to which the U.S. company will not be realizing its originally planned construction project in Mittenwalde. [The press spokesman] said that Google develops the locations of its data centers in the long term based on a variety of factors. The decision against the location around 30 kilometers south of Berlin was made "after a thorough examination of feasibility, general market developments, and our business priorities".

Comment
Well, Google will have its reason that it does not build this data center at all.

We quote and translate a report, which is about an investment of the company SAP and was publicized today: "SAP does not raise its outlook, investors disappointed
By contrast, SAP shares are at the bottom of the DAX this afternoon, down around 4.3 percent. The software group reported continued growth in its cloud business yesterday evening after the close of U.S. trading, but did not raise its full-year earnings target as some investors had hoped due to the uncertainty caused by U.S. tariffs."

Comment
Well, we leave it up to our fans and readers to draw the conclusion, which fits best with their philosophy.

Conclusion
We have envisioned it, including the successors of operating system (os), Interconnected network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW), Global Brain (GB), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), Cloud Computing (CC), automobile, robotaxi, flying car, mobile device, etc., etc., etc, and also renaissance, sciences, and civilization, that nobody even thought would be possible to do.
We have taken the risk in career killer fields, including Ontology, Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Fuzzy Logic (FL), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS), Swarm Intelligence (SI), etc.), Cybernetics, Mixed Reality (MR), etc., etc., etc., that virtually nobody wanted to take.
We have created it, that nobody was able to do.
Therefore, we were granted the right by the societies to own it, to make the rule related to it, and to take the pot home for winning the race with it. :)
And we already do not discuss the scope of allowance and licensing, and the height of royalties anymore.
And no, there is no presidential executive order regarding the copyright law, because it is a law and nobody is above the law.
And yes, there is unequivocally fair use by C.S..
And no, there is no fair use by the plagiarists of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and other artists.

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

and the other publications cited therein.

24.July.2025

06:14 UTC+2
Made for Germany = Treason of Germany

How should that work? At its core, such initiatives are only about getting control over our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System (OS) and created by C.S. by serious criminal activities conducted by the usual bad actors, as is the case with a similar initiative by many of the same bad actors in the European Union (EU) (EU AI Champions Initiative), F.R., U.K., U.S.America, etc.. Guess why so many other entities were not invited in case of the F.R.German initiative.
But that did not work in the last 25 years and only resulted in the recession, the investments, and the exacerbation of the foundational systemic problems, such as putting once again the fox in charge of the henhouse.
This cannot work for obvious reasons and we already noted our impression in the past that this totally ridiculous approach even should not work at all for other obvious reasons.

Specifically, there is no sovereign cloud, no sovereign Artificial Intelligence (AI), and no sovereign integration of both, nix, nada, nothing of that sort, because

• U.S.American global standard,
• U.S.American technology stack, and
• U.S.American full stack export package or kit for the U.S.American ally countries, including
  • AI models,
  • HardWare (HW), and
  • SoftWare (SW),

or simply said, our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), our Ontologic System (OS), our exploitation of our OS by our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), but without the consent and not on behalf of C.S..
As we said

And the largest private equity companies and venture capital firms, virtually all coming from the U.S.America, and even a foreign state-owned holding will not help any European entity, because their activities have nothing in common with philanthropy.
Somehow there must be a reason why they prefer the conspriation, corruption, and other illegal activitis over legal security.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

26.July.2025

10:05 UTC+2
Siemens blacklisted

The case is self-explanatory due to criminal copyright infringement, conspiration, corruption, wire fraud, investment fraud, and so on.

And this blacklisting is just for the usual reasons and also the formal reasons

15:39 UTC+2
There is only one OS and one SOPR

We already do have the

specifically in relation to the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, copyrights, and other rights of C.S. and our coporation regarding the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., including our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS).

We also already do have the

So much about mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation in general, and also the democratization of said oeuvre of C.S. in particular.
Or should we begin the discussion about an

and an

• put them on a level like the highly manipulated Wikipedia,
• require permanent peer reviewing, double-checking, etc., and
• make a sharing of scientifical findings and technological progresses more and more impossible due to the lack of attributions, facts, etc.?

See also the notes

and also

Are there any questions? If not, then we finish with a saying: One has to follow existing rules, before introducing new rules.

29.July.2025

08:00 und 17:35 UTC+2
CDU/CSU und Co. ignorieren Grundgesetz und Gesetze

*** Proof-reading mode ***
Zur besseren Orientierung geben wir zuerst eine kurze Übersicht über die illegalen Plagiate von unserem Ontologischen System (OS) des Unternehmens Palantir Technologies:
Wir zitieren eine Online-Enzyklopedie über das Thema Palantir Technologies: "Palantir Technologies Inc. ist ein US-amerikanischer Anbieter von Software und Dienstleistungen, der auf die Analyse großer Datenmengen und die Herstellung einer digitalen Ontologie [oder genauer einem Ontologischen Modell (OM)] von Unternehmens- und Projektdaten spezialisiert ist."
Öffenltich-rechtliche Rundfunkanstalt: "Dabei nutzt die Firma Verfahren der Künstlichen Intelligenz (KI), um Beziehungen zwischen den verschiedenen Daten herzustellen, diese visuell darzustellen und Handlungsempfehlungen daraus abzuleiten."
Verbraucherschutzforum Berlin: "Kernprodukte wie Palantir Gotham, Foundry und die neuere Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) ermöglichen es, Daten aus verschiedensten Quellen - von Überwachungsvideos über Social-Media-Inhalte bis hin zu Finanztransaktionen - zusammenzuführen und systematisch auszuwerten. Die Software erkennt dabei nicht nur Zusammenhänge, sondern kann Risiken prognostizieren oder Handlungsempfehlungen geben."

Wir zitieren und übersetzen eine Online-Enzyklopädie über das Thema Palantir Technologies: "[...]
Künstliche Intelligenz-Plattform (KIP)
[...] Das Unternehmen hat eine [illegale] Künstliche Intelligenz-Plattform (KIP) eingeführt, die große Sprachmodelle [(in englisch Large Language Models (LLMs))] in privat betriebene Netzwerke integriert. [...]
Mit [der illegalen] KIP können Benutzer über eine [grafische Benutzeroberfläche [(in englisch Graphical User Interface (GUI))] sogenannte "Agenten" erstellen. Agenten können mit einer digitalen Darstellung der Geschäftstätigkeit eines Unternehmens interagieren, die als Ontologie bezeichnet wird.
[...]"

Wir zitieren eine Online-Enzyklopädie über das Thema Bundesgesetz (Deutschland): "Als Bundesgesetz werden in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland diejenigen einfachen Gesetze bezeichnet, für die der Bund nach der Kompetenzordnung des Grundgesetzes in Art. 70 ff. GG die ausschließliche oder konkurrierende Gesetzgebungszuständigkeit hat,[1] die auf Bundesebene verabschiedet werden und die bundesweite Geltung beanspruchen. Als Bundesrecht wird darüber hinaus das gesamte in Deutschland auf Bundesebene geltende Recht bezeichnet, beispielsweise auch das Grundgesetz oder Rechtsverordnungen der Bundesminister.
Bundesgesetze werden vom Deutschen Bundestag beschlossen. Sie kommen zustande, wenn der Bundesrat zustimmt bzw. nicht widerspricht (Art. 77, Art. 78 GG).[2] [...]
[...]"

Kommentar
Allein der Bundestag darf Veränderungen an Gesetzen vornehmen und beschließen, aber nicht ein einzelnes Bundesland.
Dies gilt insbesondere für die StrafProzessOrdnung (StPO), da sie ein Bundesgesetz ist.

Wir zitieren und bearbeiten einen Web-Auftritt über das Thema automatisierter Massendatenabgleich: "Das Strafverfahrensrecht [beziehungsweise die StrafProzessOrdnung (StPO)] kennt drei Ermittlungsmethoden des automatisierten Massendatenabgleichs, nämlich

1. Der Massendatenabgleich justizexterner Daten zur Verfolgung bestimmter und erheblicher Straftaten ist unter engeren Voraussetzungen im Rahmen der Rasterfahndung möglich.
2. Der einfache Abgleich justizinterner Daten gem. § 98c StPO ist nicht an strenge Voraussetzungen gebunden und zur Verfolgung jeder Straftat zulässig.
3. Bei der Schleppnetzfahndung nach § 163d StPO handelt es sich ebenfalls um eine Eingriffsnorm zum Massendatenabgleich, um Kurzzeitdateien zum Abgleich von Personenkontrollen an der Landesgrenze und Kontrollen gem. § 111 StPO, also Kontrollstellen an öffentlichen Plätzen bei Verdacht schwerer staatsgefährdender Straftaten, durchführen zu können."

Kommentar
Siehe auch

Wir zitieren eine Online-Enzyklopädie über das Thema Rasterfahndung: "[...]

Geschichte
[...]
Am 4. April 2006 gab das Bundesverfassungsgericht einer Verfassungsbeschwerde eines marokkanischen Studenten statt, die gegen eine Rasterfahndung aufgrund einer allgemeinen Bedrohungslage im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen des 11. September 2001 erhoben worden war. Aufgrund der Entscheidung ([Aktenzeichen (]Az.[)]: 1 BvR 518/02[8]) wird die Rasterfahndung dahingehend eingeschränkt, dass sie nur im Rahmen „konkreter Gefahr“, etwa für die Sicherheit des Bundes oder eines Landes oder das Leben eines Bürgers, durchgeführt werden darf.

Rechtsgrundlagen
Die Rasterfahndung ist in den deutschen Ländern eine polizeirechtliche Maßnahme zur Abwehr einer konkreten Gefahr für hochrangige Schutzgüter.[11] Die - inhaltlich unterschiedlichen - Vorschriften sind:

Daneben ist die Rasterfahndung seit 1992 auch ein in § 98a [und § 98b] StPO gesetzlich geregeltes Mittel der Strafverfolgung. Soweit das Bundeskriminalamt als Koordinierungsstelle in die Strafverfolgung einbezogen ist, greift ergänzend als Befugnisnorm § 28 BKAG ein.

[...]"

Wir zitieren die Strafprozeßordnung (StPO) der B.R.Deutschland: "§ 98b Verfahren bei der Rasterfahndung
(1) Der Abgleich und die Übermittlung der Daten dürfen nur durch das Gericht, bei Gefahr im Verzug auch durch die Staatsanwaltschaft angeordnet werden. [...]"

Wir zitieren eine Online-Enzyklopädie über das Thema Personenfahndung: "[...]

Umsetzung
[...]
Ein weiterer Sonderfall der Personenfahndung ist die Zielfahndung: die planmäßge, aktive Suche nach ausgewählten Straftätern oder Tatverdächtigen, die besonders gefährlich sind oder besonders schwere Gewaltverbrechen oder Wirtschaftsdelikte mit hohen Schadenssummen begangen haben (in Deutschland: § 98a, § 100a, § 110a StPO). Kriminalbeamte stellen zu diesem Zweck intensive Nachforschungen an. Gibt es konkrete Hinweise auf den Aufenthaltsort der Zielperson, reisen sie gegebenenfalls auch selbst in andere Länder, um die dortigen Behörden zu unterstützen.
[...]

Instrumentarien
[...]
Bei der Strafverfolgung gibt es zudem die Schleppnetzfahndung (in Deutschland: § 163d StPO) und bei schwerwiegenden Straftaten die Kontrollstelle nach § 111 StPO. [...]

[...]"

Wir zitieren eine Online-Enzyklopädie über das Thema Ermittlungsperson der Staatsanwaltschaft: "Die Ermittlungspersonen der Staatsanwaltschaft sind in Deutschland Amtsträger, die bei Gefahr im Verzug die Befugnis zur Anordnung und Durchführung besonderer Maßnahmen zur Strafverfolgung haben.

[...]

Befugnisse
Die Befugnisse umfassen u. a. die Anordnung zu

Dabei muss oft eine Eilzuständigkeit (Gefahr im Verzug) vorliegen, vgl. Richtervorbehalt.
[...]

Personenkreis
Wer zum Personenkreis der Ermittlungspersonen der Staatsanwaltschaft zählt, bestimmt sich danach, wer die Maßnahme anordnet (Bundes-/Landesbediensteter). In der Regel sind dies

[...]"

Kommentar
Die Gewaltenteilung zwischen Judikative und Exekutive ist eindeutig in der Strafprozeßordnung (StPO) und weiteren Bundesgesetzen geregelt und kann nicht durch ein individuelles Gesetz eines Bundeslandes umgangen werden.

Der Einsatz von Software des Unternehmens Palantir Technologies sowie ähnlicher Software ist in der ganzen Europäischen Union (EU), insbesondere in der B.R.Deutschland, aufgrund der geltenden Gesetzgebung für die Exekutive (zum Beispiel Polizei und Militär) ohne fallbezogene Anordnung durch die Judikative (Gericht und Staatsanwaltschaft) verboten.

Indem ein Bundesland durch die Erweiterung seines POlizeiGesetzes (POG) oder eines anderen Gesetzes des Bundeslandes der Exekutiven exklusive Gewalt der Judikative, nämlich die richterliche Gewalt, im Zusammenhang mit dem Massendatenabgleich gibt, damit eine Polizistin oder eine Kriminalbeamtin, die keine Richterin und keine Staatsanwältin ist, solch eine illegale Software-Anwendung auch ohne die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Anordnung benutzen darf, verstößt dieses Bundesland auf vielfache Weise gegen das Grundgesetz, auch umgangsprachlich Verfassung genannt, und zugehörige Bundesgesetze, womit eben nicht nur die Gesetze bezüglich der Datensicherheit und des Datenschutzes gemeint sind.

Wir zitieren einen ersten Bericht über den illegal Einsatz einer illegal Recherche- und Analyse-Software von Palantir Technologies durch Bundesländer der B.R.Deutschland, der am 19. Juni 2025 veröffentlicht wurde: "Wird die Palantir-Software unangemessen genutzt?
Die Software Palantir macht international von sich reden. Sie wird von US-Behörden genutzt, um Migranten aufzuspüren und abzuschieben. Die Software hat Zugriff auf verschiedene Datenbanken, verknüpft Informationen und wertet sie mit künstlicher Intelligenz aus. In den USA ist Palantir damit zu einem wichtigen Werkzeug im Rahmen weitreichender staatlicher Analyse und Überwachung geworden.
Auch in einigen Bundesländern in Deutschland wird eine stark abgespeckte Version von Palantir genutzt. Offizielles Ziel des Einsatzes der Software hierzulande: die Terrorabwehr und die Abwehr schwerer Gefahrenlagen.
Laut Bayerns Innenminister Joachim Herrmann geht es darum, "dass wir in bestimmten Situationen, zum Beispiel bei einem drohenden Terroranschlag, ganz unterschiedliche Dateien miteinander vernetzen, gezielt nach einem bestimmten Namen, nach einer Örtlichkeit, nach einem Stichwort durchsuchen und feststellen können, gibt es da Verbindungen." Der Gebrauch von Palantir für die bayerische Polizei sei entsprechend definiert. "Wir verwenden das für besonders schwere Straftaten", erklärt Hermann.
[Rundfunkanstalten] und [eine Tageszeitung] erhielten nun erstmals Einblick in die Häufigkeit und Art der Straftaten, wofür die bayerische Polizei die Software [von Palantir] tatsächlich nutzt. Doch dabei geht es nicht nur um die Verhinderung großer Anschläge oder die Abwehr schwerwiegender Gefahren.

[Textkasten und Hyperlink:] 14.04.2025 [] Umstrittene US-Analyse-Software Mehrere Bundesländer gegen Einsatz von Palantir [] Ein System für die automatisierte Daten-Recherche der Polizei - dieses Ziel verfolgt die neue Bundesregierung.

Nicht nur Großlagen
Die Version, die Bayern nutzt, heißt "[Verfahrensübergreifende Recherche und Analyse (]VeRA[)]" und gilt als abgespeckte Version von Palantir. [Rundfunkanstalten] und [eine Tageszeitung] liegt eine Liste aller Anlässe vor, zu denen die bayerische Polizei VeRA seit der Einführung des Systems Anfang September 2024 bis zum 19. Mai 2025 genutzt hat.
Viele Einträge deuten auf Großlagen hin: Eine Abfrage beispielsweise stammt vom 5. September 2024, der vermerkte Grund für die Gefahr lautet: "Leib, Leben oder Freiheit einer Person". An dem Tag ereignete sich der Anschlag in München auf das israelische Generalkonsulat, der in einem Schusswechsel zwischen einem 18-jährigen Österreicher bosnischer Abstammung und Polizisten endete.
Und auch am 20. Dezember 2024 ist ein VeRA-Einsatz vermerkt: Es ist der Tag, an dem ein saudi-arabischer Arzt in Magdeburg mit einem Auto in eine Menschenmenge raste, sechs Menschen starben, hunderte wurden verletzt. An diesem Tag nutzte das bayerische Landeskriminalamt VeRA, der vermerkte Gefahrenlage: "Bestand oder Sicherheit des Bundes oder eines Landes."
Insgesamt fast hundert Mal wurde die Software in Bayern im fraglichen Zeitraum angeworfen. Doch große Gefahrenlagen stellen nicht die Mehrzahl der Palantir-Einsätze dar. Mehr als zwanzig Mal ging es um andere Zwecke, etwa Straftaten im Bereich "Eigentums- und Vermögenswerte" oder andere Straftaten. "Das kann auch der bandenmäßige Fahrraddiebstahl sein oder Geldautomatensprenger", so Benjamin Adjei, Grünen-Politiker aus München, der die Liste der Palantir-Einsätze als Antwort einer kleinen Anfrage im Landtag erhalten hat.
"Es ist völlig klar, dass man in einer großen Gefahrenlage auf alles zurückgreift, was man hat. Natürlich auch Palantir", so Adjei. Für ihn zeigt die Liste allerdings, dass es häufig gar nicht darum geht. "Es wird auch für deutlich weniger gemeingefährliche Situationen genutzt, und das besonders oft", so Adjei.

[Textkasten und Hyperlink:] 30.11.2023 [] Polizei-Analyse-Software Testet Bayern Palantir ohne Rechtsgrundlage? [] Beim bayerischen Landeskriminalamt läuft der Testbetrieb einer Analyse-Software von Palantir mit echten Personendaten.

Verknüpfung von Datenbanken möglich
Das von Palantir entwickelte implementierte System VeRA kann nicht nur polizeiliche Datenbanken verknüpfen, wie etwa das Vorgangsverwaltungssystem mit den Akten von Kriminalfällen. Das Herzstück der Software ist es, grundsätzlich auch andere bundesweite Datenbanken einzubeziehen, für die Daten zweckgebunden erhoben wurden und die normalerweise nicht für die Polizei zur Verfügung stehen. So könnten etwa Listen aus Datenbanken des Kraftfahrtbundesamtes oder das Ausländerzentralregister importiert werden und so ihren Weg ins VeRa-System finden.
Der bayerische Datenschutzbeauftragte Petri sieht das kritisch: "Das Problematische an VeRA ist, dass diese Software massenhaft Menschen in die polizeilichen Datenanalysen einbezieht, die überhaupt keinen Anlass für polizeiliche Ermittlungen gegen sie gegeben haben."
Den Einsatz für akute Terrorlagen oder vergleichbare Lagen hält er durchaus für grundrechtskonform. "Wenn allerdings die Polizei VeRA routinemäßig zur vorbeugenden Bekämpfung von Straftaten einsetzt, dann werden massenhaft unbescholtene Menschen auch dem Risiko von polizeilichen (Folge-)Maßnahmen ausgesetzt", so seine Kritik.
Vom bayerischen Innenministerium heißt es: VeRa werde im Rahmen eng gesteckter Gesetze genutzt, die Bayern dafür erlassen habe. Im Katalog der Straftaten, bei denen VeRa eingesetzt werden könne, seien Eigentumsstraftaten abgedeckt. Eine unverhältnismäßige Ausweitung von VeRa-Nutzungen sehe man nicht, da die Software nur von speziell ausgebildeten Beamten im LKA eingesetzt werden.

In Hessen 15.000 Mal im Jahr genutzt
In Hessen wird die Software von Palantir, die dort "Hessendata" heißt, bis zu 15.000 Mal im Jahr genutzt und ist inzwischen ein Kernstück der Ermittlungsarbeit, wie die Polizei bestätigt. Dort werden die verschiedenen landeseigenen Datenbanken sowie Daten aus dem Melderegister analysiert. Der Vorteil, so präsentiert es die Hessische Polizei, liege darin, dass man schwere Kriminalität ohne Datenanalyse nicht bearbeiten könne.
Es geht also weniger um die speziellen Fähigkeiten, die Palantir mitbringt und mehr darum, dass die Datenbanken überhaupt verknüpft und abgeglichen werden können. Bodo Koch, Chief Digital Officer der hessischen Polizei, erklärt, die Software diene zur Gefahrenabwehr. Er sagt, es gehe vor allem um mehr Effizienz im Alltag der Ermittler.
Von der Hightech-Plattform, als die Palantir häufig verstanden wird, und wofür sie auch in den USA eingesetzt wird, ist das weit entfernt - aus Datenschutzgründen. Die Software kann Verbindungen zwischen Daten aufzeigen, die der Polizei bereits vorliegen. Sie kann jedoch - wie auch die Software VeRA - weder Wahrscheinlichkeiten für Straftaten berechnen, noch kann sie automatisiert etwa soziale Medien durchforsten.
Nach Recherchen von [Rundfunkanstalten] und [eine Tageszeitung] hat die Software in Hessen wesentlich an Effektivität verloren, seit das Bundesverfassungsgericht 2023 die bisherige Nutzung einschränkte. Viele Daten laufen seitdem zwar weiter in die Software ein, werden jedoch vor den Ermittlern verborgen. Personen, gegen die kein erhärteter Verdacht vorliegt, werden geschwärzt und können nicht aufgerufen werden.
Die 2.000 Beamten, die mit Hessendata arbeiten, können nur solche Daten sehen, die für ihre Arbeit freigegeben sind. Wer an organisierter Kriminalität arbeitet, bekommt also beispielsweise keine Personen angezeigt, die im Bereich Terror auffällig geworden sind.

[Textkasten und Hyperlink:] 03.06.2022 [] Analysetool der US-Firma Palantir Schafft die Polizei den gläsernen Bürger? [] Nach Hessen, NRW und Bayern prüfen der Bund und weitere Bundesländer den Einsatz des Polizei-Analysetools der US-Firma Palantir, wie [Rundfunk]-Recherchen zeigen.

Hessische Polizei weist Kritik an Palantir zurück
Die Kritik an der Arbeit mit Palantir weist man in Hessen von sich. Ohne die Software habe man nun mal eine große Fähigkeitslücke, erklärt Bodo Koch von der hessischen Polizei. Und Palantir sei nach europaweiten Ausschreibungen beauftragt worden, da es bisher alternativlos sei.
Bisher nutzt neben Bayern und Hessen auch Nordrhein-Westfalen die Software. Und auch in Baden-Württemberg ist man sich sicher, dass es zwar wünschenswert wäre, für die polizeiliche Datenanalyse eine deutsche oder zumindest eine europäische Software nutzen zu können. Aber: "Derzeit gibt es nur eine Software auf dem Markt." Das Innenministerium in Baden-Württemberg meint damit VeRa. Auch das sächsische Innenministerium antwortete auf Anfrage von [Rundfunkanstalten und [eine Tageszeitung], man sehe keine Alternative zum Palantir-Produkt.
Doch vor allem in einigen SPD geführten Innenministerien der Länder ist die Distanz zu Palantir zuletzt gestiegen. In dem erst kürzlich veröffentlichten Beschluss der Innenministerkonferenz findet sich ihre Kritik deutlich wieder: Zwar will man eine bundeseinheitliche Lösung für die Polizeien aller Länder einführen, der Beschluss verweist aber deutlich auf die veränderte geopolitischen Situation.
Und ohne Palantir zu nennen, scheint der Beschluss den US-Anbieter faktisch als bundeseinheitliche Lösung auszuschließen: "Einflussmöglichkeiten außereuropäischer Staaten (zum Beispiel inhaltliche Datenveränderungen, Datenausleitungen etc.)" sollen bei einer bundeseinheitlichen Datenanalysesoftware für die Polizei ausgeschlossen sein. Es solle eine "digital souveräne Lösung" angestrebt werden.

[Textkasten und Hyperlink:] 30.12.2021 [] Österreichs Ex-Kanzler Kurz heuert wohl bei Tech-Investor an [] Berichten zufolge wird er kommendes Jahr als "Global Strategist" für den Trump-Unterstützer Thiel arbeiten.

Umstrittener Palantir-Gründer
Palantir wurde von dem umstrittenen Tech-Unternehmer Peter Thiel gegründet, der häufig durch Verschwörungsideen und seine Abneigung gegen Demokratie als Staatsform auffiel und in der neuen Trump-Regierung zu neuem Einfluss gelangt ist. Offenbar befürchten die Länder, über Palantir könnten Daten in die USA abfließen.
Wie wahrscheinlich ist eine bundeseinheitliche Lösung jetzt noch? Eigene Anläufe sind bislang gescheitert: Zwar wurde schon vor einigen Jahren eine konkrete Initiative gestartet, um eine deutsche Alternative zu den Palantir-Produkten zu entwickeln. Daran beteiligt war unter anderem das Bundesinnenministerium und ein Konsortium mehrerer deutscher Firmen.
Das Projekt "NASA" hatte zum Ziel, Softwarelösungen für Sicherheitsbehörden zu entwickeln, mit denen unter anderem eine schnelle Analyse und Verknüpfung von Daten möglich wird - perspektivisch auch unter Einsatz von Künstlicher Intelligenz.
Im Frühjahr 2024, nach mehreren Jahren, in denen Konzepte für unterschiedliche Behörden, darunter Polizei und Nachrichtendienste, erarbeitet wurden, kam die Initiative zum Erliegen. Ebenso erste Überlegungen einer deutsch-französischen Kooperation zur Entwicklung einer Palantir-Alternative. Die Haushaltslage, so heißt es von damals beteiligten Personen, sei dafür ausschlaggebend gewesen. Eine Anschubfinanzierung in bis zu dreistelliger Millionenhöhe sei nicht realisierbar gewesen.
Palantir wehrt sich gegen die vorgebrachte Kritik. Die Firma betonte auf Anfrage, man sammle keine Daten über oder verkaufe Daten von Bürgern. Man überwache mit seinen Produkten auch niemanden und habe sich als Unternehmen entschlossen, keine Tools zum Vorhersagen von Straftaten (predictive policing [system==vorausschauendes oder prädiktives Überwachungssystem]) zu entwickeln oder anzubieten. Bezüglich einer etwaigen politischen Nähe zur Trump-Regierung antwortete Palantir, man konzentriere sich darauf, langfristigen Interessen der Gesellschaft zu dienen, unabhängig von politischen Veränderungen."

Kommentar
Zunächst halten wir noch einmal fest, dass es eben nicht nur um eine Zusammenführung von Daten der Polizei geht, sondern von möglichst vielen Datenbeständen von verschiedenen Behörden und anderen Einrichtungen des Staates.

Wir merken auch an, dass das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes auf das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung und den Datenschutz fokusiert. Datenschutz ist natürlich auch ein großes Problem und eine wichtige Aufgabe und beides wird fortwährend immer wichtiger, insbesondere weil die Gesellschaft jetzt genau das geworden ist, was alle niemals wollten, nämlich eine Gläserne Gesellschaft.
Aber wir diskutieren den Sachverhalt auch aus ganz anderen Sichtweisen, wie zum Beispiel die Gewaltenteilung in einer Demokratie und einer modernen Gesellschaft.

Offensichtlich verstoßen alle Bundesländer mit dem Einsatz ihrer jeweiligen Palantir-Varianten und ihren eigenen Landesgesetzen eklatant gegen die StrafProzessOrdnung (StPO) und letztendlich auch gegen das Grundgesetz, insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit der Gewaltenteilung zwischen Judikative und Exekutive, weil

So ist zum Beispiel Bayern gar nicht erlaubt die Analyse-Software VeRA ohne richterliche oder gegebenenfalls staatsanwaltschaftliche Anordnung zu nutzen. Dass Bayern den in der StPO festgelegten Katalog der Straftaten mit einem eigenen "Katalog der Straftaten, bei denen VeRa eingesetzt werden könne" durch sein PolizeiAufgabenGesetz (PAG) erweitert hat, ist sogar vollkommen unerheblich, weil es ja um den automatisierten Massendatenabgleich durch die Exekutive geht.

Auch in Hamburg sind die gesetzlichen Vorgaben zur Datenerhebung, -verarbeitung und Datenschutz eindeutig. Das Gesetz über die Datenverarbeitung der Polizei (GesDatVPol) ist in dem hier diskutierten Kontext nur innerhalb der StPO anwendbar.

Zudem beruht die Gefahrenabwehr immer auf der Vorhersage von (potentiellen) Straftaten==Predictive Policing und gegebenenfalls Handlungsempfehlungen==Recommendations of Action, die auf solchen Vorhersagen basieren.

Auch kann man solch ein Software-System nie "von der Stange kaufen".

Wir zitieren einen zweiten Bericht über den illegal Einsatz einer illegal Recherche- und Analyse-Software von Palantir Technologies durch Bundesländer der B.R.Deutschland, der am 4. Juli 2025 veröffentlicht wurde: "Polizei will umstrittene Palantir-Software einsetzen: BW-Grüne halten dagegen
Die Polizei in Baden-Württemberg soll künftig eine Recherche- und Analysesoftware nutzen dürfen, um Daten schneller auswerten und schwere Straftaten verhindern zu können. Die Software soll Zugriff auf Daten der Polizei bekommen, die bisher nur getrennt vorlagen und händisch ausgewertet werden mussten. Laut Innenministerium hat die Polizei dafür bereits einen Vertrag mit dem US-Unternehmen Palantir abgeschlossen. Doch die Grünen melden Bedenken an.

Gründer von Palantir lehnt Demokratie ab
Dass die Polizei grundsätzlich eine Software zur Datenanalyse brauche, stehe außer Frage, sagte Grünen-Innenpolitiker Oliver Hildenbrand dem [Rundfunk]. Das Produkt "Gotham" [(vorausschauendes oder prädiktives Überwachungssystem==Predictive Policing System eingeführt in 2008, 2 Jahre nach der Präsentation von unserem Ontologischen System (OS))] von Palantir sieht er aber äußerst kritisch: "Wir haben große Bedenken, was den Einsatz dieser Software angeht. Wir glauben, dass es nicht in Ordnung ist, auf die Software einer solch fragwürdigen und auch demokratiegefährdenden Firma zurückzugreifen."
Einer der Palantir-Gründer und Großaktionär der Firma ist Trump-Unterstützer Peter Thiel. Thiel ist bekannt dafür, dass er die Demokratie ablehnt.

Chaos Computer Club spricht von "Grundrechtseingriffen"
Hildenbrand plädiert deshalb für eine deutsche oder europäische Software-Lösung. Baden-Württemberg brauche digitale Souveränität. Zum Stand der Verhandlungen innerhalb der Koalition sagt der Grünen-Innenpolitiker: "Wir haben keine Übereinkunft, was den Einsatz dieser Software Gotham der Firma Palantir angeht."
Und es gibt weitere kritische Stimmen: [...] Chaos Computer Club Stuttgart fordert eine Abkehr von den Palantir-Plänen in Baden-Württemberg: "Der Nutzen ist unbelegt, die Grundrechtseingriffe sind massiv und weder das Unternehmen noch die Software selbst ist vertrauenswürdig."

SPD fordert Ausstieg aus der Planung
Aus der SPD-Landtagsfraktion heißt es auf [Rundfunk]-Anfrage, man habe allergrößte Zweifel, was den Einsatz einer Palantir-Software angehe. "Die Landesregierung muss aus entsprechenden Überlegungen aussteigen - wie es auch andere Bundesländer zu Recht tun."
Anders sieht es FDP-Innenpolitikerin Julia Goll: "Derzeit erfüllt leider nur das Produkt von Palantir alle wesentlichen Kriterien. Solange höchste Standards der Datensicherheit und des Datenschutzes gewährleistet werden und die Daten auf deutschen oder europäischen Servern gespeichert werden, überwiegen für uns die Vorteile dieses Projektes."

Innenministerium will an Palantir festhalten
Digitale Souveränität sei wichtig, so sieht man es auch im CDU-geführten Innenministerium. Und ist sich einig mit der FDP: "Nach unserem Kenntnisstand steht bislang keine vergleichbare europäische Software, die zeitnah funktionsbereit ist, zur Verfügung."
Die Integration erfolge unter Einhaltung aller datenschutzrechtlichen Vorgaben, heißt es aus dem Ministerium auf [Rundfunk]-Anfrage. Betrieben werden solle die Software in eigenen Rechenzentren. "Ein Zugriff durch ausländische Stellen ist ausgeschlossen."

Palantir-Angestellte unterstützen bayerisches LKA
In Bayern ist das Palantir-Produkt bereits im Einsatz. Dort gelingt der Datenschutz laut Recherchen [einer] Zeitung nicht ganz. Denn in Bayern unterstützen demnach bis zu sieben Mitarbeitende von Palantir dauerhaft den Betrieb der Software im Landeskriminalamt, mit Zugriff auf Test- und Produktivsysteme.
Ein Szenario, zu dem Grünen-Politiker Hildenbrand sagt: "Ich finde, solche Leute haben in unseren polizeilichen Datenbanken nichts verloren. So was will ich mir nicht vorstellen."
Das baden-württembergische Innenministerium beschwichtigt: Fachkräfte des Anbieters können demnach zwar für Wartungs- oder Schulungsmaßnahmen punktuell eingebunden werden. Aber: "Stets unter Aufsicht der Polizei und ohne Zugang zu operativen Daten." Der Betrieb finde ausschließlich in gesicherten Rechenzentren in Deutschland unter Hoheit der Polizei statt.

Gesetzesänderung vor dem Software-Einsatz nötig
Den IT-Experten Stefan Leibfarth überzeugt das nicht: "Bei Wartungen und Updates besteht ein Zugriff von Mitarbeitern auf das Produktiv-System, ist technisch nicht anders möglich."
Bevor eine neue Software zum Einsatz kommen kann, muss die Landesregierung noch das Polizeigesetz ändern. Dazu seien die Koalitionspartner in Gesprächen, so Oliver Hildenbrand. Dass die Gesetzesänderung kommen soll, sei unstrittig. Die Polizei solle eine Software nutzen dürfen, um schwere Straftaten zu verhindern - zum Beispiel Terroranschläge, Mord oder Missbrauchsdarstellungen von Kindern.
Erst nach der Gesetzesänderung steht laut Hildenbrand die Frage an, welche Software man verwende. Der Vertragsabschluss der Polizei mit Palantir könnte somit voreilig gewesen sein."

Kommentar
Im Bericht wird zwar nur über die "polizeilichen Datenbanken" geschrieben, also (internen) Daten der Polizei. Aber im Zusammenhang mit Straftaten unterliegen diese Daten dennoch den gesetzlichen Vorgaben der StrafProzessOrdnung (StPO) und sind justizinterne Daten, die nur auf Anordnung eines Gerichtes oder gebenenfalls einer Staatsanwaltschaft automatisiert massenhaft abgeglichen werden dürfen.

Eine Änderung des POlizeiGesetzes (POG) oder eines anderen Gesetzes eines Bundeslandes ist

um solch eine Software-Anwendung legal nutzen zu können.

Wir zitieren einen dritten Bericht über den illegal Einsatz einer illegal Recherche- und Analyse-Software von Palantir Technologies durch Bundesländer der B.R.Deutschland, der am 28. Juli 2025 veröffentlicht wurde: "Palantir-Nutzung ohne rechtliche Grundlage?
Das "Palantir-Desaster": So nennt der grüne Koalitionspartner das, wofür sich das CDU-geführte Innenministerium in Baden-Württemberg derzeit verantworten muss. Denn es hat einen Vertrag mit Palantir abgeschlossen, zu deren Mitgründern der US-Investor Peter Thiel zählt. Das allein wäre schon Anlass für Debatten, denn Thiel ist hoch umstritten. In Baden-Württemberg kommt hinzu, dass es gar keine rechtliche Grundlage für die Nutzung der von Palantir entwickelten Software gibt.
[...] Die Software wertet große Datenmengen aus und stellt Verbindungen her.

Warnung vor "hochinvasivem Instrument"
"Dabei gelangen potenziell auch völlig Unbeteiligte mit in die Datenverarbeitung", kritisiert Baden-Württembergs Datenschutzbeauftragter Tobias Keber. Er spricht von einem "hochinvasivem Instrument", für das es bislang keine Rechtsgrundlage gebe. Trotzdem hat Baden-Württemberg einen Fünfjahresvertrag mit Palantir abgeschlossen. Debatte über Palantir auch auf Bundesebene
Der Streit um Palantir beschäftigt längst Innenpolitiker in ganz Deutschland. Sachsens Innenminister Armin Schuster (CDU) und andere Politiker aus der Union plädieren für einen bundesweiten Einsatz einer für Deutschland modifizierten Palantir-Software. Sie argumentieren, es gebe bisher keine andere ausgereifte Anwendung, die mit der von Palantir konkurrenzfähig wäre. Auch Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) schließt eine Nutzung von Palantir-Software nicht aus.
Die SPD ist dagegen: Sie befürchtet, dass man sich dadurch bei einer Schlüsseltechnologie von einer US-Firma abhängig mache. Der innenpolitische Sprecher der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Sebastian Fiedler, verweist zudem auf den umstrittenen Mitgründer und Anteilseigner von Palantir, Peter Thiel. Der Tech-Milliardär sei "ein Demokratiefeind von besonders bedrohlichem Kaliber", sagte Fiedler dem Handelsblatt. "Es ist wirklich nicht vermittelbar, dass wir diesen Typen ausgerechnet aus Steuermitteln finanziell fördern."
Thiel ist bis heute Vorsitzender des Verwaltungsrats von Palantir. Er gilt als einer der wichtigsten Strippenzieher in der US-Politik und ist berüchtigt für seine Kritik an der Einführung des Frauenwahlrechts und seine demokratiefeindlichen Aussagen. Thiel unterstützte zudem US-Präsident Donald Trump bereits bei dessen erster Kandidatur 2016.

Grüner Koalitionspartner war nicht informiert
In Baden-Württemberg ist das Innenministerium für den Vertragsabschluss mit Palantir verantwortlich, doch Minister Thomas Strobl (CDU) gibt sich ahnungslos: "Ich habe selber keinen Vertrag geschlossen." Im Landtag muss sich sein Staatssekretär Thomas Blenke (ebenfalls CDU) der Kritik der Abgeordneten stellen. Das Programm des US-Anbieters sei das einzige, das den "polizeilichen Anforderungen" genüge, sagt er.
Dass das baden-württembergische Polizeigesetz die Datenzusammenführung und -verarbeitung, wie sie Palantirs Software leistet, derzeit gar nicht erlaubt, muss Blenke allerdings eingestehen. Trotzdem habe man im März den Vertrag unterzeichnen lassen, "und zwar am letzten Tag einer Preisbindungsfrist". Nach Ablauf dieser Frist wäre der Vertrag laut Blenke "ungefähr doppelt so teuer" geworden.
Der grüne Koalitionspartner war über diesen Deal offenbar nicht informiert. Oliver Hildenbrand, innenpolitischer Sprecher der Grünen, sieht offene Fragen: "Was für Verträge mit welchen Inhalten sind unterzeichnet worden? Wie kommt man aus diesen Verträgen wieder raus?"
Staatssekretär Blenker verweist im Landtag auch auf ein anderes Bundesland: Beim Vertragsabschluss habe man sich an Bayern orientiert, das einen Rahmenvertrag mit Palantir ausgehandelt habe.

Software in mehreren Bundesländern umstritten
Die bayerischen Polizeibehörden nutzen bereits ein Programm, das auf der Palantir-Software basiert. Die rechtliche Grundlage dafür hat die bayerische Landesregierung im vergangenen Jahr mit der Änderung des "Polizeiaufgabengesetzes" (PAG) geschaffen. Es erlaubt den bayerischen Polizeibehörden nun das sogenannte "Data Mining" - das automatisierte Zusammenführen und Auswerten großer Datenmengen, so wie Palantir es ermöglicht.
Kritiker bezweifeln ganz grundsätzlich, ob das rechtens ist. Der gemeinnützige Verein "Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte" (GFF) hat in den Bundesländern, in denen bereits eine Palantir-Software genutzt wird, Verfassungsbeschwerde eingelegt: in Hessen, in Nordrhein-Westfalen und nun auch in Bayern. "Die weitreichende Zusammenführung in einer Art Super-Datenbank und die automatisierte Massenauswertung von personenbezogenen Daten verletzt Grundrechte", argumentiert die GFF. Sie sieht eine Verletzung der informationellen Selbstbestimmung und des Fernmeldegeheimnisses.

[...]"

Kommentar
Die Zusammenführung der (verschiedenen) Daten der Polizei, die der Strafverfolgung dienen, ist der Exekutiven aufgrund der StPO so oder so nicht erlaubt, sondern nur der Judikativen, weil es justizinterne Daten sind. Da können die einzelnen Bundesländer herumdoktern wie sie wollen.

Und unsere Gesellschaft für Ontologische Aufführung und Reproduktion (GOAR) führt Palantir Technologies schon seit dem Juni 2022 wegen Gaia-X 1.0 auf seiner schwarzen Liste.

Was uns immer mehr auffällt und verwundert (nicht wirklich) ist, dass die CDU/CSU das Unternehmen Palantir Technologies unter Verletzung einer Fülle von Gesetzen durchdrücken will, wie man es auch in den letzten Jahrzehnten und Monaten mit anderen Unternehmen beobachten konnte.

Siehe auch die Bemerkung

und die anderen darin referenzierten Publikationen.

12:09 UTC+2
Comment of the Day

as an Agent™ (aaA)

15:16 UTC+2
Moonshot blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

15:24 UTC+2
SenseTime blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

30.July.2025

11:36 UTC+2
Brazil has to comply with the ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)
Batteries, originality, neutrality, harmony, and mutual respect are always included.

31.July.2025

10:10 UTC+2
Meta (Fb) still in LaLaLand

Meta (Facebook) and its founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Marc Zuckerberg, are continuing with lying to investors.

For example, there is absolutely no evidence that its investment in the field of Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Fuzzy Logic (FL), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Holonic Agent System (HAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS), Swarm Intelligence (SI), etc.) is driving its revenue and profit.

Furthermore, Zuckerberg is refusing to make the legally required pflichtreports to shareholders, including warning about potential issues.
In fact, it is not about the field of Virtual Reality (VR) and the Metaverse (Mv) anymore, which also showed that it is about the field of Mixed Reality (MR), also wrongly and illegally called eXtended Reality (XR), which is a shorter designation of our eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR), and not about the fields of Bionics and smartglasses, but about all together integrated, which is definetly part of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), Ontologic Scope (OSc), OntoSocial, Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and Ontoscope (Os), 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.
And we already made crystal clear that Meta (Facebook) will neither get an own foundational platform in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov), but only Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Servcies (OAOS) on the basis of the Social and Societal System (SSS) of our SOPR, nor our

but only OAOS on the basis of our Ontoscope MultiGlasses Architecture respectively our Os, and so on.

And a share of 3 to 5% of the company EssilorLuxottica, a collaboration with a Cloud Service Provider (CSP), or any other ridiculous action will not change the legal situation and the position of Meta (Facebook), but only adds to the huge heap of legal arguments for an asset stripping or even a complete break-up of that illegal monopoly.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

12:44 UTC+2
SOPR reminds of due dates

See the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would also like to give the reminder about the general due date for withdrawing the opening of our Ontologic System (OS) and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS on the 30th of September 2025.

And our SOPR has prepared a revision of its License Model (LM). As we always say, there is still significant room for improvements of our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions.

Furthermore, we are working on the formal requirements and actions for asking civil and federal courts to mediate in relation to the

This als supports the establishment of a Joint Venture (JV) respectively takeover, specifically in case of a defaulting or insolvent licensee.

By the way: