In this relation, we note at first that at least the documents titled

do exist and constitute relevant prior art.
We also note that in the first document tilted "Intrapolynomial Cryptography" the first sentence reads as follows: "Researchers have proposed a variety of "client puzzle" or "busy-work" proposals like hashcash, MicroMint, bit gold, and compute-cost postage to create independent currencies or make spamming costly."

Bit Gold is based on timestamping, blockchain, secure property titles, Proof-of-Work (PoW) inspired by Hashcash and some few similar works, etc., but Bitcoin is based on "a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis[, which needs] to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash".

We also got once again an older version of the document titled "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority", publicized in 1998, and updated in 1999, which does not mention Bit Gold.

Taking all these informations together shows the following:
Nick Szabo had already mentioned, described, and integrated all foundational building blocks, which were later used for Bitcoin.

Satoshi Nakamoto had explicitly described a different consensus protocol for building the replicated blockchain used for Bitcoin, which works implicitly in the steps
"5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent." and
"6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.",
and the protocol
"Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it."
He also designed a different block header (block hash), and some other parts and functionalities in comparison to the secure property titles and Bit Gold of N. Szabo.

C.S. had already integrated some fields after N. Szabo, but before S. Nakamoto, such as the

In relation to Bitcoin the first integration of us is only relevant with a single node of the distributed timestamping service respectively platform and network in the step
"3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block."
But the steps to run the timestamping network, specifically the steps
"1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.",
"4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.",
"5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.", and
"6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.",
are still (management) operations and (project, service, or user) tasks of the fields of Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC), Grid Computing (GC or GridC), including Opportunistic SuperComputing (OSC or OSupC), and Volunteer Computing (VC or VolC) (e.g. Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) middleware system).

Nevertheless, we still are not convinced about the Bitcoin, because of the steps
"1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes." and
"2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.",
and the protocol
"New transaction broadcasts do not necessarily need to reach all nodes. As long as they reach many nodes, they will get into a block before long."

These leads to an

Moreover, it can be done much more elegantly, practically, and cost effectively.
We also refer to our approach based on distributed telescopes and looking up into the sky: Stars do not lie, which is also suggested by Nick Szabo in the document titled "Advances in Distributed Security" and publicized in 2003: "Natural Broadcasts
[...] A remote beacon such as a pulsar has perfect security: the access structure is any party, and its complement, the attack structure, is the empty set. [...]
Natural broadcasts are thus immune to the problem, described in the discussion of the [Byzantine fault,] Byzantine Generals problem[, or Byzantine agreement problem] below, of a transmitter sending different values to different receivers. [...]"
See also the OntoLix and OntoLinux Further steps of the 26th of October 2017.
Please note that we came to this conclusion independently around the same year and also integrated it with our Belief System (BS), Caliber/Calibre, eXtended Reality (XR), and Ontoverse (Ov) to something totally new correspondingly called New Reality (NR).

We will revise the

and other publications, if required.

05.June.2025

02:02 UTC+2
U.K. has to scrap Data (Use and Access) Bill immediately

Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) 1999, Bionic, Cybernetic, Ontonic Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), global, model-reflective, actor-based (concurrent), fault-tolerant, Distributed os (Dos), Agent-Based os (ABos), AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, NLP, NLU, Multi-Agent System (MAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS), etc., coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), multimodal, foundations, and so on

Ontologic System (OS) 2006, Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) integrates all in one, all Bionic, Cybernetic, Ontonic (BCO) variants and versions, next Interconnected network (Internet), next World Wide Web (WWW), next Global Brain (GB) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0), next Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), and so on

Ontologic System (OS) explanation, clarification 2016, generates all this and that, all artistic works, contents, and so on (our top-down approach with coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Foundational Model (FM), Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Large Language Model (LLM), etc.)

And only when Microsoft, IBM, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta (Facebook), and Co. saw what and how we do it, then it worked, like for example in the fields of

C.S. is allowed to do LLM, ReasoningLM, etc. under fair use exemption/clause, but others are not. And that totally ridiculous Data (Use and Access) Bill will not change the copyright of C.S. for the original and unique, personal, new expressions of idea (see above and this website of OntomaX).
SOPR protects works of art. It is a matter between SOPR and artists.
Terms of Service (ToS) with its License Model (LM), including Transaction Fee Model (TFM), of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), inlcuding exclusive and mandatory infrastructures, including Marketplace for Everything (MfE)

This is court-proof and not up for debate.
And we warned all governments all the time to not distort, tamper, or fiddle around with the copyright in other ways.
And we do already know that they all do already know that our way is the right way, but that they do not want to respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

17:41 and 29:20 UTC+2
Nebius Group (Yandex) blacklisted

The company Nebius (Nvidia 0.5%) provides infrastructure and services in the field of Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Computer Vision (CV), Computer Audition (CA), Agent-Based System (ABS), etc.). It offers Nebius AI or Nebious.AI, which is an illegal AI-centric cloud platform, which again provides full-stack infrastructure, including large-scale (Nvidia) Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) clusters, cloud services, and developer tools.

and minority stakes in other companies in the field of Bionics.

Its Toloka subsidiary was founded as a crowdsourcing and microtasking platform, but later also became a provider of data labeling service, and then of services for our coherent Ontologic Model (OM) and transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, also misleadingly called by its parts Large Language Model (LLM) and generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) (see also the fields of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), Information Retrieval (IR), Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), Domain Specific Language (DSL), semantic annotation, etc., and also our Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase), and Ontologic File System (OntoFS) software components as part of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) of our Ontologic System (OS)).
And Toloka's promotion as 'Human Touch' AI Group makes crystal clear that we got the right impression about it.
Toloka is already violating the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

But going on with that fraud or even serious crime to boost the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure called Nebius.AI, which is definitely part of said exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other further Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

makes its case and our action self-explanatory.
The original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have been used as source of inspiration and blueprint in a way, which infringes the rights (e.g. moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and other personal and competiton rights) and properties (e.g. copyrights) of C.S. and our corporation.
Therefore, the ToS of our SOPR do apply.

And we are neither in the Wild West nor in Russia here, but in OntoLand.
It is that simple.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

06.June.2025

12:58 UTC+2
ClickHouse blacklisted

Its ClickHouse Cloud, which is based on its column-oriented or columnar DataBase Management System (DBMS) (see also our Ontologic data storage Base (OntoBase) and Ontologic File System (OntoFS) software components as part of our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) of our Ontologic System (OS)), is already violating the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

But going on with that fraud or even serious crime to boost the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure, which is definitely part of said exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other further Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

makes its case and our action self-explanatory.
The original and unqiue ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. have been used as source of inspiration and blueprint in a way, which infringes the rights (e.g. moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and other personal and competiton rights) and properties (e.g. copyrights) of C.S. and our corporation.
Therefore, the ToS of our SOPR do apply.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

07.June.2025

04:53, 05:03, 07:01, 11:52, and 20:29 UTC+2
Canonical 100% plus penalties

This case is self-explanatory, like the case of the Linux Foundation and all the others.

They have their Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) things.
We do have our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) since 1999 and our Ontologic System (OS) since 2006 with their compilations, compositions, integrations, unifications, fusions, designs, architectures, components, etc..
Therefore, nix, nada, nothing

The original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. are not for free.
Their contracts and License Models (LMs) presented by Canonical, but also companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Oracle, Nvidia, and so on are not the contract and the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and therefore are void and do not provide legal security, specifically in relation to what is listed above.

We have collected more evidence in the cases of the companies Nvidia and Canonical, which raises also more questions in relation to other companies.
A tabular comparison, as is usual in legal issues with patents, for example, will easily show the undeniable sameness between our original and unique works of art and those illegal plagiarisms and fakes.
Therefore, it is only a formality to get the proper referencing respectively citation with attribution confirmed at the courts in a first step. And if we got this, then we will get the other legally required actions regarding our moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights confirmed as well. And if we got this, then we will get the action for an injunction at the courts in a third step.
In addition, the conspiracy in this specific case is also so crystal clear that even a blind man can see it.

The criminal energy in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community is always breathtaking and highly disappointing.
They are definitely not the good ones, which is also the reason why we went away again more than a decade ago.
They will be unable to explain why they are unable to present truly legal and decisive prior art and intellectual property, and why they all collaborate even in case of the newest innovation, which every industrial entity would have patented.
And forget all those nonsense mythical legal arguments and instead study the precedent cases.
The exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. cannot be circumvented or overcome anyway, specifically not with all those dirty tricks. Therefore, proper referencing respectively citation with attribution, avoidance of interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exploitation rights (e.g. commercialzation rights (e.g. monetization rights)), and so on is allways legally required.

So take your FOSS crap and go away, but do not forget to pay damages and transfer all illegal materials to us. No debate. Period. Hasta la vista. :)

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

and the other publications cited therein.

08.June.2025

19:34 UTC+2
Nvidia and Co. decided to ignite the big bang

If one more [net zero cursing] stunt à la Nvidia on the 30th of May 2025 or other AI crap will happen, then we are done with the opening of the oeuvre of C.S. and give the cases to the courts, market regulators, and other federal institutions, departments, agencies, and so on.

We hold the other companies, like for example Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Oracle, Meta (Facebook), and Co. also accountable due to their very well known and completely documented criminal copyright infringements and blackmailing, and also collaborations, agreements, and conspiracies, with each other and with other entities, including the company Nvidia, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) foundations, organizations, and other groups, governments, research institutes, universities, and so on.
Or just keep watching, how Nvidia and AI crap start-ups are poaching also in their core businesses and future businesses, or do nothing and wait for the 1st of October 2025.

And for the rest of the rat pack once again: There is

other than our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic Sytem Components (OSC), Ontoverse (Ov), and Ontoscope (Os), and the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.
And for sure, there is no democratization of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) inlcuded in the oeuvre of C.S., but the righs (e.g. moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights, competition rights) and properties (e.g. copyrighs, digital assets) of C.S. and our corporation.

Specifically companies, like for example Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC), Intel, Arm Holdings, Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Samsung, Apple, Qualcomm, Marvell Technology, Cerberas, Cisco, Broadcom, and Co. definitely have not to do anything related to the original and unique works of art created by C.S., but have to accept the law, which is already the compromise, and correspondingly rights, properties, and legal competition.
In this relation, we got a highly interesting statement of the inventor of the Chip-on-Wafer-on-Substrate (CoWoS) packing technique of TMSC (see also the note SOPR decided license only with OntoLab BCOICs of the 16th of May 2025). Legal experts and market regulators can directly see why this is so relevant and does not violate for example Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

And there is no mimicking, reflection, impersonation, substitution, etc. of C.S., including the (bionic, cybernetic, ontonic) self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, bionic, cybernetic, ontonic reflection, augmentation, and extension, and metaphysical concept of consciousness, process of thinking, and imagination of spirit. That serious criminal founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Nvidia even presents himself not only as a 3D or Virtual Reality (VR) avatar, but ultimately also as C.S.'. Now he must have gone totally nuts.

And we repeat that Nvidia has become a threat to national security, and sovereignty, and also public policy of the United States of America and other countries.

09.June.2025

06:12 UTC+2
KDDI blacklisted

This case in Japan is self-explanatory.

The company SoftBank is already blacklisted, but like in the cases of Nvidia, Meta (Facebook), and other companies this action of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) does not seem to be enough.

06:31 UTC+2
Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison blacklisted

This case in Indonesia is self-explanatory.

06:15 UTC+2
Singtel blacklisted

This case in Singapore is self-explanatory.

06:16 UTC+2
YTL blacklisted

This case in Malaysia is self-explanatory.

06:17 UTC+2
FPT blacklisted

This case in Vietnam and Japan is self-explanatory.

06:50 UTC+2
Military Industry and Telecoms Group blacklisted

This case in Vietnam is self-explanatory.
This company is trading as Viettel or Viettel Group.

It is the only customer of an illegal part of our OS, that was not mentioned in a related document of the company Nvidia about 18 Telecommunication Service Providers (TSPs), that are violating 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).

Needless to say under entities, that have at least a minimum of goodwill and behaviour, our SOPR would also like to recall that this regulation regarding a JV with an SOE is no legal loophole regarding control, operation, royalties, etc., and if it is misused as a legal loophole, then we will add another regulation to the ToS of our SOPR to close said legal loophole according to the related regulation of the ToS of our SOPR.
Furthermore, moving a goal post results in reducing the freedom to act.

06:22 UTC+2
Tata Communications blacklisted

This case in India is self-explanatory.

06:23 UTC+2
Jio blacklisted

This case in India is self-explanatory.

06:18 UTC+2
Ooredoo blacklisted

This case in Qatar is self-explanatory.

06:20 UTC+2
Iliad blacklisted

This case in F.R. is self-explanatory.
This includes Scaleway.

06:21 UTC+2
Telenor blacklisted

This case in North Europe is self-explanatory.

See also the note

06:24 UTC+2
Swisscom blacklisted

This case in Swiss and Italy is self-explanatory.
This includes Fastweb, Vodafone Italia, and Fastweb + Vodafone.

We already had disruptive activities in relation to the field of drone delivery and illegal cryptocurrencies.

06:25 UTC+2
Telconet blacklisted

This case in Ecuador is self-explanatory.

06:26 UTC+2
Telus blacklisted

This case in Canada is self-explanatory.

06:26 UTC+2
Cassava Technologies blacklisted

This case in Africa is self-explanatory.

06:27 UTC+2
Kazakhtelecom blacklisted

This case in Kazakhstan is self-explanatory.

12:02 UTC+2
Scale AI blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

Please also note that our

• Logic Model (LM),
• Foundational Model (FM),
• Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM),
• Foundation Model (FM),
• General Purpose Language Model (GPLM),
• Global Language Model (GLM) (top-down approach, all in one approach, LLM on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale),
• Large Language Model (LLM) (subsymbolic, model-reflective, or pre-trained ontological frame),
• unified or integrated LLM, symbol processing LLM, Reasoning Language Model (RLM),
• hybrid symbolic LLM,
• ontology with LLM, Domain Specific Language (DSL) with LLM,
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM),
• Large MultiModal Model (LMMM),
• Large Action Model (LAM),
• Logic Probabilistic Model (LPM) or Probabilistic Logic Model (PLM),
• and all of the other subfields of the field of Bionics,

• Logic Programming (LP),
• etc.,

• Computing with Words (CwW) paradigm (Fuzzy Logic (FL)==CwW),
• our transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• our bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) to Artificial Intelligence (AI), and
• our prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,

• our Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• our (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• etc.,

are significantly better, because of logics, ontology, and ontologics, logic-based Artificial Intelligence (AI), Knowledge Management (KM), and also Information Retrieval (IR) were added with for example our

But no prior art exists for all of this (even for purely subsymbolic, connectionist (neural) LLM we do know only 2 documents, which somehow are not really relevant at all), because it was created by C.S. with our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and our Ontologic System (OS), and the details of variation, implementation, etc. are not that relevant in relation to our Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA) and our Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), including for example what is called full-stack Artificial Intelligence infrastructure and much more.

It has already been concluded that at least the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S. have to be respected, which demands

which for example excludes all Free and Open Source Software (FOSS).
The moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights are directly connected to the copyrights and even to some competition rights.

Oh, what a pity. :D
We can also do things differently.==Wir können auch anders.

By the way:

10.June.2025

08:48 and 09:39 UTC+2
SOPR considering ban of Ray-Ban Meta

Our SOPR concluded that the next plagiarism and fake of the company Meta (Facebook), which is called Ray-Ban Meta and manufactured and sold together with the company EssilorLuxottica, infringes the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S., because it is nothing else than a plagiarism and fake of the original and unique Ontoscope (Os) in the wearable variant, also wrongly and illegally called smartglasses, in the version iRaiment or iR Rayfarer, also known as MultiRay-Ban Wayfarer, and designs similar to the sunglasses model Ray-Ban Wayfarer, etc. (see the Comment of the Day #1 and Original vs. Inspiration of the 14th of April 2013).

Our SOPR is considering the same in relation with every plagiarism and fake of the original and unique Ontoscope (Os) in the wearable variant, also wrongly and illegally called smartglasses, in the version iRaiment or iR Cyberskin, also known as MultiOakley Frogskins, and designs similar to Oakley Frogskins, etc. (see the Comment of the Day #1 and Original vs. Inspiration of the 14th of April 2013).

Our SOPR is also considering to reserve these specific Os works of art for our corporation, subsidiaries, and Joint Ventures (JVs).

We also highly recommend EssilorLuxottica to stop the collaboration with the company Meta (Facebook) or face the same legal actions and a lot of other obstacles by our SOPR. And no, Meta (Facebook) is not in the position to be of any help.

Welcome to the Ontoverse (Ov).

By the way:

11.June.2025

08:12, 08:32, and 11:32 UTC+2
Some thoughts and notes

We observed several developments within different time scales (last year, last months, last weeks, last days) and would like to share some thoughts and also some informations.

About the continuation of the mess of the companies Nvidia, Meta (Facebook), and Ponzi Meme Stock Corporation we do not need to talk anymore. That will be stopped in the next future and they all will go back to their very core businesses, which are definitely not our businesses, specifically not any interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive exploitation rights (e.g. commercialzation rights (e.g. monetization rights)) in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..
No entity will question or substitute our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

We also noticed that the convergence of the most relevant Language Models (LMs) and their utilizations based on our coherent, model-reflective Ontologic Model (OM) and Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS) based on our OM is in progress. Alphabet (Google) Gemini, and a lot of other models, and also Microsoft CoPilot and Amazon Alexa, and a lot of other unauthorized materials will come back to our OM, Ontologic Programming (OP), Ontologic Computing (OC), and Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), and other Ontologic System Components (OSC), and also Ontologic Search (OntoSearch) and Ontologic Find (OntoFind), and so on.
We also observed that more and more companies are now implementing, operating, and utilizing our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) with its Evolutionary operating system Architecture (EosA), which is based on the fields of Bionics, Cybernetics, Cyber-Physical System (CPS) (see also Distributed operating system (Dos), Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) or Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), Multi-Agent System (MAS), Cognitive Agent System (CAS) (see also the Cognition and Affect (CogAff) architecture (e.g. Emotive Computing (EmoC) and Affective Computing (AffC)), and parallel analogy (panalogy) architecture (e.g. Emotion Machine Architecture (EMA)), and Ontonics, among many other fields with collaborative agents specialized in one field, such as texting, imaging, composing, programming, searching, managing, operating, socializing, etc., which proves once again that our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) is already the standard worldwide (see also the note Oh, what ...? 44 quotes as evidence of the 24th of April 2025).

Another topic of particular interest is the company Apple and its version of specific parts of our Ontologic System (OS) branded as Apple Intelligence and Siri.

We quote a first report, which was publicized on the 10th of June 2025 (yesterday): "[...]
But a few months on, it became clear that Apple Intelligence, the company's proprietary AI, wasn't ready for prime time. The smarter Siri never arrived, and Apple shelved it indefinitely earlier this year. Apple also had to roll back its AI-powered text message summaries [...].
That's because Apple's whole main deal is, like, "our stuff works and people like it" - two qualities that generative AI systems still broadly lack, whether they're made by Apple, Google, Meta or OpenAI.
The problem is that AI tech is not living up to its proponents' biggest promises. And Apple's own researchers are among the most prominent in calling out the limitations. On Friday, [the 6th of June 2025,] Apple dropped a research paper that found that the even some of the industry's most advanced AI models faced a "complete accuracy collapse" when presented with complex problems.
[...]"

We quote and translate a second report, which was publicized today: "Too unreliable: Apple explains Siri delay
For the first time, Apple has explained in more detail why a new version of the voice assistant Siri with artificial intelligence has been delayed. The iPhone company had working prototypes of the software. "But we couldn't make them reliable as quickly as we thought," Apple's software boss Craig Federighi told [a newspaper]."

Comment
First of all, we recall that others and we told you so, specifically that it is not possible, because systems based on so-called Large Language Models (LLMs) are highly complex, but also chaotic.
While some have no clue about operating system (os), some others have no clue about Algorithmic Information Theory (AIT), and some more others have no clue about anything.

Furthermore, we note once again that Apple carefully listened to what we said in the last 2 years and navigated its company as good as possible.
Moreover, Apple will also utilize the common basic OM and OSC provided by our SOPR for its Siri and Ontoscope (Os) variants and versions, which will include some surprises.

And we all together will talk with our 3 special graces, the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) foundations, organizations, and other groups, and all other entities concerned how things are truly working.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

12:21 UTC+2
Waymo should provide API for Robocab™ services

The subsidiary Waymo of the company Alphabet (Google) should provide the common Application Programming Interface (API) for ride-hailing services, such as Zoox, Cruise, Tesla, Uber, WeRide, and Co.

But courier services (e.g. food delivery, freight transport) will be handled by other transport and logistics.

See also the note

18:02 UTC+2
C.S. is allowed, but others are not

C.S. is allowed to perform and reproduce, and also exploit the

• Logic Model (LM),
• Foundational Model (FM),
• Capability and Operational Model (COM),
• Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM),
• Foundation Model (FM),
• General Purpose Language Model (GPLM),
• Global Language Model (GLM),
• Large Language Model (LLM),
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM),
• Large MultiModal Model (LMMM),
• Large Action Model (LAM),
• Logic Probabilistic Model (LPM) or Probabilistic Logic Model (PLM),
• etc.,

• constructing, updating, maintaining, managing, etc. an OM,
• Computing with Words (CwW) paradigm (Fuzzy Logic (FL)==CwW),
• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI) or said in other words cybernetic reflection between NI and AI, and
• prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,

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

of the original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. even with material of the companies New York Times, Walt Disney, Universal, and Co..
But this has to happen only as a performance and reproduction, and also exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) of the Ontologic System within the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) or another new expression of idea created by C.S., which also means that C.S. is not allowed to

In contrast to the patent right, the copyright is not an absolutely exclusive right, which means a copyright holder is not allowed to stop a creation of a new expression of idea based on (the transformation of) a prior work of art of said copyright holder.
In this relation the fair use exemption/clause of the copyright law is always cited, which has already been exploited by C.S. in relation to what is listed above. Another entity, that claims for the same fair use, is merely infringing the rights and properties (e.g. copyright) of C.S. in relation to the Ontologic System and other new expressions of idea created by C.S., and also of other copyright holders (e.g. Microsoft and OpenAI, Alphabet (Google), Meta (Facebook), Midjourney, and Co.).

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

12.June.2025

12:00 and 12:43 UTC+2
Some thoughts and notes

We already wanted to publish this in relation to the note Some thoughts and notes of the 11th of June 2025 (yesterday), but somehow found it not so relevant.
However, it became relevant today.

We quote and translate a first report, which was publicized on the 10th of June 2025: "OpenAI wants to use Google Cloud
Due to the rapidly growing demand for computing power for ChatGPT, OpenAI wants to use the cloud of [Artificial Intelligence (]AI[)] rival Google in the future, according to several insiders. After months of negotiations, an agreement to this effect was signed a few weeks ago, said one of the people familiar with the matter.
The Alphabet subsidiary Google has its own Artificial Intelligence (AI) offering, Gemini, which is vying with ChatGPT for the leading position in this technology. To date, OpenAI's software has mainly been running in the data centers of partner and investor Microsoft. Neither OpenAI nor Google or Microsoft wanted to comment on this issue.
With this deal, Google Cloud has landed a major contract. At the same time, OpenAI threatens Google's Internet search business, which has generated the lion's share of the company's revenue to date. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has always brushed aside such concerns in the past.
However, he is facing a balancing act [or dichotomy]: The sale of computing capacity to competitors is slowing down the growth of its own AI division DeepMind, although the corporate group was already unable to meet customer demand for computing power in the past quarter."

Comment
We have no idea whether this is fact or fiction, and new evidence or fairytale respectively just another newspaper hoax==Zeitungsente.
Our first assumption was a convergence of the respective AI models respectively partial plagiarisms and fakes of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) in the course of a reconstitution, restoration, and restitution, and also transition process. But more activities seem to be happening, which also would contradict this.

Howsoever, if this is not a hoax, then one point would be crystal clear, namely that the company Alphabet (Google) would need to explain this obvious contradiction from different points of view.

And also the company Microsoft would have to answer more questions, specifically how it wants to keep the self-created mess with the companies Nvidia and OpenAI under control.

We also quote and translate a second report, which was publicized today: "OpenAI wants to raise 40 billion dollars
According to a media report, the ChatGPT manufacturer OpenAI has spoken to the Saudi [Arabia's Public Investment Fund (]PIF[)], the Indian company Reliance Industries, and the existing shareholder MGX of the United Arab Emirates about financing amounting to 40 billion dollars. As [a news magazine] reported, citing insiders, the investors could each contribute at least hundreds of millions of dollars. OpenAI is looking for further funding to drive forward its model development and its ambitious Stargate infrastructure plan."

Comment
"Groundhog Day" "Und täglich grüßt das Murmeltier==And every day the groundhog greets" until it has been ....

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

15.June.2025

09:10 and 11:15 UTC+2
Do not be fooled by Nvidia

In compliance with the

our SOPR will not give the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our Ontologic System (OS), which are utilizing our

• Cloud Computing of the second generation (CC 2.0) (Cloud Computing of the first generation (CC 1.0), Server-Side Scripting (SSS), Web Service Architecture (WSA), Service-Oriented Architecture of the second generation (SOA 2.0), Service-Oriented Computing (SOC), Service-Oriented Programming (SOP), On-Demand Software (ODS) or Software as a Service (SaaS), etc. with Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) or hypervisor, Virtual Private Server (VPS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), etc.) (infrastructure),
• Cloud Computing of the third generation (CC 3.0) (CC 2.0 with Distributed operating system (Dos), Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM), operating system Virtual Machine (osVM), operating system-level Virtualization (osV) or containerization, (lightweight container) orchestration, microService Architecture (mSA), Platform as a Service (PaaS), Integration Platform as a Service (IPaaS), etc.) (infrastructure),
• Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (CEFC) (CC x.0 with Cyber-Physical System (CPS), Internet of Things (IoT), Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC), Networked Embedded System (NES), Ambient Intelligence (AmI), etc.) (infrastructure),
• Cloud-native Computing (CnC) (CEFC with Kernel-Less (KL), Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2PC), microVirtual Machine (mVM), operating system-level Sandbox (osS) or container sandbox, Container as a Service (CaaS), ServerLess (SL or SeL) and StateLess (SL or StL, etc.), Function as a Service (FaaS), etc.) (infrastructure),
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) stack, Machine Learning (ML) stack, AI software stack, AI full-stack environment, AI infrastructure stack, full-stack AI infrastructure, full-stack AI factory infrastructure, etc.,
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure, AI supercomputer, AI supercomputer infrastructure, AI cluster, AI cluster infrastructure, AI cloud, Intelligent Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (ICEFC), intelligent cloud infrastructure, etc.,
• AI enterprise, AI enterprise Cloud-native software platform, etc.,
• AI factory, AI factory infrastructure, Enterprise AI Factory for Agents, etc.,
• Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0),
• and much more,

and our

• Ontologic Computer-Aided technologies (OntoCAx),
• Ontologic Applications and Ontologic Services (OAOS), including
  • SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS),

  specifically in the fields of

• Ubiquitous Computing of the second generation (UbiC 2.0)
• Internet of Things of the second generation (IoT 2.0),
• Cyber-Physical System of the second generation (CPS 2.0),
• Networked Embedded System of the second generation (NES 2.0), including our
  • Industry of the fourth generation (I 4.0) (Industry of the third generation (I 3.0) with ontology and digital twin),
  • Industry of the fifth generation (I 5.0) (Industry of the fourth generation (I 4.0) with eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), etc.), and
  • Industry of the sixth generation (I 6.0) (Industry of the fourth generation (I 4.0) with Cognitive System (CS or CogS), Ontologic Model (OM) (e.g. Large Language Model (LLM)), Ontologic Computing (OC) (e.g. transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, prompt engineering, forming, shaping, configuring respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.)), and
  • Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),
  • and so on.

The exclusivity of the infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including what is listed above, in the notes cited below, and elsewhere are part of the agreement for opening our original and unique work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S. and allowing and licensing the performance and reproduction of certain parts of our OS.
And we made crystal clear all the years that this is the minimum and we will not renegotiate anything in relation to this agreement.

Ultimately, legal certainty is only given with the membership in our SOPR and the license agreement of our SOPR.
And none of the fraudulent and even serious criminal collaborating, conspiring, and corrupting entitis will be successful at the courts. Promised. :)

Moreover, nobody needs the far too expensive and totally overprized Nvidia processors and in 18 months a(n illegal) Bionic, Cybernetic and Ontonic Data Center (BCODC) is already old and no longer competitive.
The latter also questions once again the rationale behind such an investment and the sustainability of a business operating such an illegal BCODC and providing illegal OAOS.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

By the way:

17.June.2025

08:43 UTC+2
Nvidia, Palantir, OpenAI, and a lot more 100%

Meta (Facebook) 75%
Oracle, Salesforce, SAP 70 to 75%

violation of moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights), frustration of momentum, prevention of reputation, etc. by criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy, corruption, wire fraud, investment fraud, etc., etc., etc.
damages the higher of apportioned compensation (triple damages) unpaid, profit generated, and value increased (!!!)

We are also cleaning up the mess with the agreement with the member states of the European Union (EU) besides cleaning up the mess with the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and enforcing the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
After the market of the P.R.China the market of the EU is already gone for U.S.American companies of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industrial sector in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks(AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. and only accessible for them through our corporation and its subsidiaries, Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and other Societies, and Joint Ventures (JVs), which requires the worldwide license agreement.
The same applies to the situations of the others, European companies in U.S.A. and P.R.C., P.R.Chinese companies in U.S.A. and EU.

The company Oracle has virtualy signed as well. We quote and translate a report, which is about the company Oracle and fiscal key figures, and was publicized on the 2025: "[...]
"The 2024/2025 financial year was very good. We believe that the 2025/2026 financial year will be even better," [the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)] continued. Growth in the Cloud Ontoverse (Ov) division is expected to almost double to 40 percent from 24 percent in the past twelve months.
In the past quarter, the U.S. software group reportedly increased its revenue by eleven percent [....] after adjusting for currency effects and made a profit [...] per share. The Cloud Ontoverse (Ov) business even grew by 27 percent [...].
The cooperation with the world's leading Cloud Ontoverse (Ov) providers Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud has paid off, emphasized Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. Sales in connection with this cooperation more than doubled in the fourth quarter compared to the previous quarter."

Comment
If the company Oracle can do it, then all other companies can do it as well.
This shows that our way does work and no illegal Stargate and other Artificial Intelligence (AI) infrastructure, etc. is needed and will be coming at all, but only the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, specifically Bionic, Cybernetic, and Ontonic Data Centers (BCODCs), SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS), and so on.

And please, no Snap Ray-Ban (Wayfarer) or Ray-Ban Snap (AI) as well.
See also the note SOPR considering ban of Ray-Ban Meta of the 10th of June 2025.

So much about the rare, original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., national security, cyber sovereingty, and so on, and why it is always better to collaborate with us and become a part of us.

18.June.2025

11:22 UTC+2
Samsung Ray-Ban (Wayfarer), too?

Do we have the next Ontoscope (Os) in the version iRaiment or iR Rayfarer, also known as MultiRay-Ban Wayfare, with a Samsung Ray-Ban (Wayfarer) or Ray-Ban Samsung (AI) as well?

It is our original and unqiue Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic System Components (OSC), and Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and also Ontoscope Components (OsC) and therefore the

do apply worldwide.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

19.June.2025

10:20 UTC+2
SOPR considering BCOSC of DoE as illegal

We quote a headline of a report: "Energy Dept. Unveils Supercomputer That Merges With [Artficial Intelligence (AI)]
The flagship supercomputer, planned for 2026, will use Nvidia chips tailored for A.I. [AI] calculations and the simulations common to energy research and other scientific fields."

Comment
As we always say, we have not created and invented everything, because others also have ideas and are busy. This holds true for the foundational fields and subfields of Bionics, Cybernetics, and Ontonics, and also Computational Physics (CP, ComP, or CPhy), including

But the Bionic, Cybernetic, and Ontonic Faciliy for SuperComputing (SC or SupC) (BCOSC) and SuperNetworking (SN or SupN) (BCOSN) of the U.S.American Department of Energy (DoE) constitutes an illegal performance and reproduction respectively operation and implementation of an essential part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA) and Ontologic System Components (OSC), including

of all fields listed above and our OntoLab

series {better wording} utilized for a related facility, technology, good, and service, like for example

• BCO Data Center (BCODC), what is wrongly called
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled data center,
• AI infrastructure,
• AI supercomputer,
• AI supercomputer infrastructure,
• AI cluster,
• AI cluster infrastructure,
• AI cloud,
• Intelligent Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (ICEFC),
• intelligent cloud infrastructure,
• etc.,

which are also part of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies.

We do not have the impression that countries with their governments, armies, ministries, agencies, universities, industries, and other institutions and entities are entitled to ignore or even violate the

And all those cheap and dirty tricks do not help anybody.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

11:07 UTC+2
Palantir scandal in F.R.G. only beginning

The essential parts of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) copied by the company Palantir Technologies have been copied by other companies as well, including at least 2 large F.R.German companies, including prior art, such as the Polygon(al) Data(base) Model (PDM) and Management System (PDMS).
Therefore, the software of Palantir Technologies is not without alternatives and no federal state of the F.R.Germany does need this.

The utilization of PDMS by law enforcement agencies and other federal authorities is only legal in certain limits, which depends on the way how the Information Retrieval (IR) is done in practice. In fact, some queries are ordinary database queries. But a user can also make queries, which violate the rights of innocent citizens.

We will not discuss the case further at this point.

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein.

20.June.2025

09:44 UTC+2
Gaia-X 2.0 still in LaLaLand

We quote and translate a report, which was publicized on the 19th of June 2025 (yesterday): "[....]
No German joint application for AI Gigafactory
Leading German technology companies have not been able to agree on a joint concept for a European AI Gigafactory. Deutsche Telekom, cloud provider Ionos, and the IT subsidiary of the Schwarz Group (Lidl, Kaufland) would therefore submit competing applications to the EU, reported the specialist service "Tagesspiegel Background Digitalisierung & KI".

[...]"

Comment
"Groundhog Day" "Und täglich grüßt das Murmeltier==And every day the groundhog greets" until it has been ....

In the last days, we just wrote about that matter of what is wrongly and illegally called

which we called Gaia-X 2.0.
For example, we mentioned the following on the 15th of June 2025: "What was the talk of F. Merz and J. Huang about? Gaia-X 2.0?
As a lawyer, F. Merz is very well aware of what the legal situation truly looks like."
Obviously, it was about that.

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) gives no allowance and license for an illegal performance and reproduction of a foundational and essential part of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) and acts against any loophole.

For sure, that development is no surprise for us at all, but we were prepared all the time and worked on that matter for quite some time.
The whole dirty game of the European Commission (EC) and the F.R., F.R.Germany, I.R., and other member states of the European Union (EU), playing us off against U.S.American entities, has already been busted some years ago, but now it is also virtually completely transparent.

We have already discussed all aspects of this matter broadly and exhaustively. Therefore and for other reasons, such as the dirty fellows of the lying press and all the other unknowing, unteachable, or unconscious entities in our societies, we will not discuss any longer what is absolutely crystal clear, but only give once again the recommendation to stop all of that nonsense, including a digital tax, because it will not work.

And our SOPR will not let down its partners in the U.S.America, the U.K., the P.R.China, and other countries, because our SOPR is neutral and some of them are also our win-win Joint Venture Partners (JVPs) respectively subsidiaries. :)

See also the notes

and the other publications cited therein or publicized elsewhere on this website of OntomaX.

10:24 UTC+2
EC should harmonize EU tax landscape

The nonsense Value Added Digital Tax (VADT), which is even illegal in the European Union (EU), does not solve the same issue with other large companies (e.g. BlackRock), even including companies, that have their headquarters in the EU (e.g. Porsche SE/Volkswagen if we remember correctly).

10:50 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

We concluded that we can use one of our many undisclosed technologies, which is based on undisclosed improvements of existing technologies on the one hand and will also set a global standard on the other hand, for a different application and that only a very simple adaptation is required for this.

14:11 UTC+2
SOPR recalls integration of SPs

*** Work in progress - red line not sharp enough ***
First of all, we would like to note that we are talking about our original and unique

which defined or claimed the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) long before anybody else understood at all what C.S. has created.

Furthermore, our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would like to recall some considerations and regulations for the integration of the infrastructures of

with the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, such as Universal Ledger (UL), Marketplace for Everything (MfE), Trust as a Service (TaaS), SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS), and so on.

We have designed the whole legal matter along the

• management or strategic processes,
• operational processes, and
• support processes,

and

and long before anybody else understood at all how significant for example the fields of

• Artificial Intelligence (AI),
• Machine Learning (ML),
• Artificial Neural Network (ANN),
• Computational Intelligence (CI),
• Soft Computing (SC of SoftC),
• Evolutionary Computing (EC),
  • Genetic Algoritm (GA),
  • Genetic Programming (GP),
  • etc.
• Fuzzy Logic (FL),
• Computer Audition (CA),
• Computer Vision (CV),
• Agent-Based System (ABS),
• Multi-Agent System (MAS),
• Holonic Agent System (HAS),
• Cognitive Agent System (CAS or CogAS),
• Emotive Computing (EmoC) and Affective Computing (AffC), and Emotional Intelligence (EI),
• Common Sense Computing (CSC),
• Swarm Intelligence (SI) or Swarm Computing (SC or SwarmC),
• etc.

• eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), including
  • Mediated Reality (MedR), including
    • Augmented Reality (AR),
    • Augmented Virtuality (AV), and
    • Virtual Reality (VR),
  • Semantic Reality (SR or SemR),
  • Simulated Reality (SR or SimR),
  • Synthetic Reality (SR or SynR),
  • etc.
• Cyber-Physical System (CPS),
• etc.

and

will become, so that

both in return for royalties under Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

Correspondingly, the areas of contact between for example the

specfically raw networking performance, and also computing power, and data storage, and

Some publications in relation to telco cloud and carrier cloud:

• BCO Data Center (BCODC), what is wrongly called
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled data center,
• AI infrastructure,
• AI supercomputer,
• AI supercomputer infrastructure,
• AI cluster,
• AI cluster infrastructure,
• AI cloud,
• Intelligent Cloud, Edge, and Fog Computing (ICEFC),
• intelligent cloud infrastructure,
• etc.,

• Ontologic Net (ON), including
  • Future Interconnected network Architecture (FIA), New Generation Network (NGN), etc.,
  • Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup),
  • 5G New Radio (5G NR), 5G Next Generation (5G NG), 6G, xG,
• Ontologic Web (OW), including
  • Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0,
  • Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0),
• Ontologic uniVerse (OV) with its eXtended Mixed Reality (XMR) or simply eXtended Reality (XR), including
  • eXtended Mixed Reality Environment (XMRE) or simply eXtended Reality Environment (XRE), including
    • Virtual Reality Environment (VRE), what is wrongly and illegally called
    • Metaverse (Mv),
    • etc.,
  • Multiverse,
  • Industry 4.0, 5.0, 6.0,
  • etc.

are most important.

The general separation in the

is straightforward.

The

Please keep in mind on and pay attention to the required Bionic, Cybernetic, and Ontonic HardWare (BCOHW), specifically our OntoLab BCO Integrated Circuit (BCOIC) series.

24.June.2025

00:07 UTC+2
Snowflake blacklisted

The so-called cloud-based data storage respectively data warehouse was already highly questionable.
But since 2021, the company stole more and more of the exclusive and mandatory parts of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS), such as our transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, "multimodal AI capabilities" based on our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Marketplace for Everything (MfE), and SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS), and also the so-called "AI Data Cloud", which made this case self-explanatory since around 2023.

Maybe 100%.

By the way:

00:14 UTC+2
Cumulocity blacklisted

The so-called

And the copying of our website contents to mislead deliberately the members of the addressed and interested public about the true origin of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS) was also already unexceptable.
But since 2021 the company stole more and more of the exclusive and mandatory parts of our original and unique Ontologic System (OS), such as our UbiC and IoT, CPS, and NES platform, Belief System (BS), Trust as a Service (TaaS), and SoftBionics as a Service (SBaaS), and also the so-called Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT), which made this case self-explanatory.

Most potentially 100%.

By the way:

• Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) licenses are incompatible with the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S., and
• mythical dirty trick with free or fair use for education, etc. does not work at all, because
  • precedent of the U.S.American Supreme Court exists to our benefit (simply said that mythical claim is just plain wrong),
  • proper referencing respectively citation with attribution is always required so or so,
  • any interference with, and also obstruction, undermining, and harm of the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) has always to be avoided so or so,
  • vast amounts of copyrighted materials for educational use is monetized for a fee, and
  • many of those FOSS projects are ordinary commercial and even industrial projects, which renders them as acts of moonlighting.

Got it? Fine! Now transfer all illegal materials (e.g. FOSS codes, documentations, etc.) and go away.

00:51, 13:34, and 21:31 UTC+2
Hebbia blacklisted

This case is self-explanatory.
The company Hebbia has exactly the same foundational legal problem like for example the company Perplexity AI, which is our original and unique

• Logic Model (LM),
• Foundational Model (FM)
• Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM),
• Foundation Model (FM),
• General Purpose Language Model (GPLM),
• Global Language Model (GLM) (top-down approach, all in one approach, LLM on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale),
• Large Language Model (LLM) (subsymbolic, model-reflective, or pre-trained ontological frame),
• unified or integrated LLM, symbol processing LLM, Reasoning Language Model (RLM),
• hybrid symbolic LLM,
• ontology with LLM, Domain Specific Language (DSL) with LLM,
• Artificial Neural Network MultiModal Model (ANNMMM),
• Large MultiModal Model (LMMM),
• Large Action Model (LAM),
• Logic Probabilistic Model (LPM) or Probabilistic Logic Model (PLM),
• and all of the other subfields of the field of Bionics,

• transformative, generative, and creative Bionics,
• bidirectional Bridge from Natural Intelligence (NI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Bridge from NI to AI) or said in other words cybernetic reflection between NI and AI, and
• prompt engineering, ontological frame, ontology (specification, context), knowledge base, and context forming, shaping, configuring, etc. respectively cognitive processing, educating, teaching, learning, etc.,
• etc.,

• Ontologic Model-Based Autonomous System (OMBAS),
• what is illegally called Autonomous Artificial Intelligence (AAI),
• what is wrongly and illegally called Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI),
• what is wrongly and illegally called (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG),
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered Search Engine or AI Search Engine (AISE)
• what is wrongly called AI-powered chatbot or AI chatbot,
• what is wrongly and illegally called AI-powered assistant or AI assistant, or intelligent assistant,
• what is illegally called agentic AI,
• what is wrongly and illegally called Collaborative Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ColAI) or collaborative Artificial Intelligence (AI) service,
• etc.,

and

Expression of idea, compilation, ..., integration, ..., architecture, sui generis work of art. Hasta la vista.

And we have once again an interesting group of conspiring investors and business partners.

By the way:

22:47 UTC+2
Competition regulators have to comply with laws

At first, governments and their federal authorities allowed companies to grow without limits. Now, they want to break them up.

But the marktet acts of the countries are far too ambiguous and the procedures of the competition regulators are far too capricious.

The choice for the

See also the note

25.June.2025

00:00 and 10:10 UTC+2
The higher of compensation, profit, and value

Apportioned and at least 20 years retroactively.
We said since 1st of January 2014 would be sufficient and we will participate.

See also the notes

Fait non accompli.

26.June.2025

15:28 UTC+2
SOPR recalls more features of IDAMS

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) would like to give the reminder that the IDentity and Access Management System (IDAMS) of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies is compliant and compatible with the

See also the note

Our SOPR will also present more details in relation of our IDAMS in the next future after certain legal actions have taken place.

22:38 and 23:45 UTC+2
SOPR studied new legal cases related to Bionics

*** Work in progress - better order and wording ***
We took a quick look at the legal cases

We quote and translate a first report, which is about the case Sarah Silverman et al. vs. OpenAI and was publicized on the 14th of February 2024: "AI training with books: OpenAI partially successful in authors' copyright lawsuit
A court rejects some points of an authors' lawsuit over the use of books for AI training. However, the allegation of direct copyright infringement remains
A Californian district court has dismissed several counts of a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by well-known U.S.American authors against OpenAI. The plaintiffs accuse the Microsoft partner of having copied the authors' copyright-protected works without asking, used them to train its GPT language models, and enriched itself from them. Although the latter was deemed unfounded by the judges, the accusation of direct copyright infringement remains pending.
The authors allege that OpenAI's chatbot ChatGPT, which is based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models, knows their works by heart and can summarize them correctly on request. In addition, it writes texts in the style of the plaintiffs on demand, also using certain unique phrases from their works. This would prove that the AI chatbot had copied the books.

Copyright lawsuit by US authors such as Sarah Silverman
The lawsuit filed by of the U.S.American authors against OpenAI for copyright infringement combines the complaints of comedian Sarah Silverman with those of writers Christopher Golden, Richard Kadrey, and Paul Tremblay. In addition to copyright infringement, OpenAI violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), because it omits necessary information about original authors, book titles, terms of use and so on when ChatGPT compiles new texts in the style of certain authors.
According to the plaintiffs, these texts represent derivations of the original works; the omission of copyright information is in itself illegal. The lawsuit also alleges unfair competition under California law, tortious negligence, and unjust enrichment.
OpenAI had asked the U.S.American Federal District Court in Northern California to dismiss all but the first claim, direct copyright infringement, and Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín has now confirmed this. She dismissed the claims for DMCA violations, negligence, and unjust enrichment. However, the allegation of unfair competition, because OpenAI did not obtain permission to use the works for its own profit, remains, as does the copyright infringement.

Plaintiffs' arguments not conclusive enough
The judge was not convinced that OpenAI had deliberately suppressed copyright notices such as the book title and that the authors had suffered economic damage. The authors' complaints did not include the fact that the defendant had reproduced and sold the works. The risk of "future intellectual property damages" was too speculative to consider. Moreover, the authors had not sufficiently substantiated the similarity of book content and ChatGPT responses.
The authors have until 13th of March [2024] to amend their complaints in order to close gaps in their arguments. OpenAI also has the opportunity to lodge an appeal at the same time. Meanwhile, negotiations on the actual copyright infringement continue. The lawsuit is being conducted in the US Federal District Court for Northern California under case numbers 23-cv-03223-AMO and 23-cv-03416-AMO."

Comment
For sure, it is very well known that a plaintiff must argue much more precisely, exhaustively, and convincingly, and also has to present as much as possible substantial and profound evidence to a court, for example in this case original (created phrase, excerpt) versus input (prompt, command), output (generated phrase, excerpt).

The legality depends on the specific case of reproduction of an original work, specifically if the minimum threshold for fair use has been met respectively if a derivative work with an original and unique transformative and new expression of idea has been created.

The "certain unique phrases from their works" or "short excerpts" are quotes, which have to be marked as such and properly referenced respectively cited with attribution accordingly. In addition, the citing work must be concerned with the original work, but not merely a verbatim copy of it.
In this relation the judge is erring, when arguing that the plaintif "did not include the fact that the defendant had reproduced and sold the works", the defendant had not violated the DMCA, and so on. Very surprisingly and incomprehensibly, unique or unambiguous phrases or (short but relevant) excerpts seem not to be viewed as quotes by the judge or were not presented crystal clearly as such fact to the judge.

Furthermore, members of the addressed and interested public might be confused about the true origin of a work of art.

Moreover, the "risk of "future intellectual property damages"" is not too speculative to be considered. In fact, a lot of related events are already known to the broad public worldwide, such as the protests of the music and film industries.

But the lawsuit is ongoing and this is only the first instance. In the case Thomson Reuters→Westlaw vs. Ross Intelligence, which shows some similarity with this and the other cases quoted in this clarification, the plaintiff won.
See also the summarizing conclusion of this clarification below.

We quote and translate a second report, which is about the case Thomson Reuters→Westlaw vs. Ross Intelligence and was publicized on the 12th of February 2025: ""Really bad for the AI industry": AI company loses in first U.S. lawsuit
Dozens of lawsuits are pending in the U.S.A. because AI was trained with unlicensed material. Now there has been a setback for the AI industry.
For the first time in the U.S.A., a media group has taken legal action against an AI company that used its content to train its algorithms. If other courts agree with this assessment, it would be "really bad for the generative AI industry", [a news magazine] quotes an IT law expert. The legal dispute now decided between Thomson Reuters and the long-since closed AI start-up Ross Intelligence was not about generative AI at all, it was filed back in 2020. However, as in many other court cases, it was based on the question of whether training an AI with unlicensed material falls under fair use. Exactly this has now been decisively denied.
The case involves Westlaw, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters. Among other things, it maintains databases with so-called headnotes or orientation sentences, which are short summaries of legal texts, such as court decisions. As a competitor, Ross Intelligence wanted to create an AI-based search engine for precisely these short texts, summarizes Judge Stephanos Bibas from Delaware. The start-up wanted to license Westlaw's content for the training, but the company refused. As a result, Ross Intelligence hired another company, which ultimately created the training data using exactly the content from Westlaw.
When the AI company was taken to court in 2020, it defended its actions on the basis of the fair use doctrine. This allows the unauthorized use of copyrighted material under certain rules and is also used as a defence in other lawsuits against AI companies. In this specific case this was not accepted, with the judge responsible even revoking a preliminary ruling to the contrary. The main deciding factor was that a competing product had been built. The ruling literally states that "none of Ross's possible defenses are valid - I reject them". "Copying our content was not 'fair use'", Thomson Reuters is satisfied. [HyperBingo!!! For us and not the others.]
The decision does not bode well for the many pending court cases against AI companies. If other courts reject the reference to fair use in the same way, this would remove a crucial basis for training the models with immense amounts of content. [An] IT law expert [...] points out to [a news magazine] that Bibas has rejected most of the court decisions that AI companies have relied on to date as "irrelevant". Ross Intelligence itself had already been shut down in 2021 as a result of the legal dispute."

Comment
The ruling is correct regarding the fair use doctrine under the assumptions that the

Indeed, the defendent has violated the Lanham (Trademark) rights, the copyright regarding databases and similar works, and potentially other rights due to an extensive or even complete copy of the original compilation of headnotes or orientation sentences for commercial and also competing use.

But two other well-established principles in the copyright law of the U.S.America are also important to be noted:

Therefore, an entity is allowed to build an own database, AI-powered search engine, or other form of compilation and utilization of publicly available materials or facts (e.g. headnotes or orientation sentences) and provide a related good or service to a customer.
See also the case Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

And the ruling is not bad for the so-called AI industry at all, because it provides a guideline and legal security for all entities concerned.

See also the lawsuit Andrea Bartz et al. vs. Anthropic PBC and the summarizing conclusion of this clarification below, which discuss the fair dealing and fair use doctrine respectively exclusion of the copyright in more detail, though some of the arguments made by Anthropic are just only for the wastebasket.

We also quote a third report, which is about the case public-law broadcaster British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) vs. Perplexity AI and was publicized on the 20th of June 2025: "BBC threatens AI firm with legal action over unauthorised content use
The BBC is threatening to take legal action against an artificial intelligence (AI) firm whose chatbot the corporation says is reproducing BBC content "verbatim" without its permission.
The BBC has written to Perplexity, which is based in the US, demanding it immediately stops using BBC content, deletes any [BBC content] it holds, and proposes financial compensation for the material it has already used.
It is the first time that the BBC - one of the world's largest news organisations - has taken such action against an AI company.
In a statement, Perplexity said: "The BBC's claims are just one more part of the overwhelming evidence that the BBC will do anything to preserve Google's illegal monopoly."
It did not explain what it believed the relevance of Google was to the BBC's position, or offer any further comment.
The BBC's legal threat has been made in a letter to Perplexity's boss Aravind Srinivas.
"This constitutes copyright infringement in the UK and breach of the BBC's terms of use," the letter says.
The BBC also cited its research published earlier this year that found four popular AI chatbots - including Perplexity AI - were inaccurately summarising news stories, including some BBC content.
Pointing to findings of significant issues with representation of BBC content in some Perplexity AI responses analysed, it said such output fell short of BBC Editorial Guidelines around the provision of impartial and accurate news.
"It is therefore highly damaging to the BBC, injuring the BBC's reputation with audiences - including UK licence fee payers who fund the BBC - and undermining their trust in the BBC," it added.

Web scraping scrutiny
Chatbots and image generators that can generate content response to simple text or voice prompts in seconds have swelled in popularity since [another AI company] launched [another plagiarism and fake of our Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic Programming (OP), Ontologic Computing (OC), Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot), etc.] in late 2022.
But their rapid growth and improving capabilities has prompted questions about their use of existing material without permission.
Much of the material used to develop generative AI models has been pulled from a massive range of web sources using bots and crawlers, which automatically extract site data. [HyperBingo!!! For us and not the others. 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), Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale, Global Brain (GB), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) and LM, etc., Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0), etc. based on the use of the entire Internet, WWW, etc. have been confirmed as truly transformative and new expression of idea.]
The rise in this activity, known as web scraping, recently prompted British media publishers to join calls by creatives for the UK government to uphold protections around copyrighted content.
[...]
In response to the BBC's letter, the Professional Publishers Association (PPA) - which represents over 300 media brands - said it was "deeply concerned that AI platforms are currently failing to uphold UK copyright law."
It said bots were being used to "illegally scrape publishers' content to train their models without permission or payment."
It added: "This practice directly threatens the UK's £4.4 billion publishing industry and the 55,000 people it employs."
Many organisations, including the BBC, use a file called "robots.txt" in their website code to try to block bots and automated tools from extracting data en masse for AI.
It instructs bots and web crawlers to not access certain pages and material, where present.
But compliance with the directive remains voluntary and, according to some reports, bots do not always respect it.
The BBC said in its letter that while it disallowed two of Perplexity's crawlers, the company "is clearly not respecting robots.txt".
Mr Srinivas denied accusations that its crawlers ignored robots.txt instructions in an interview with Fast Company last June.
Perplexity also says that because it does not build foundation models, it does not use website content for AI model pre-training.

'Answer engine'
The company's AI chatbot has become a popular destination for people looking for answers to common or complex questions, describing itself as an "answer engine".
It says on its website that it does this by "searching the web, identifying trusted sources and synthesising information into clear, up-to-date responses".
It also advises users to double check responses for accuracy - a common caveat accompanying AI chatbots, which can be known to state false information in a matter of fact, convincing way.
[...]"

Comment
The BBC is arguing to a large extent in the same way as the plaintiffs in the cases above and below.

Of course, the reproduction of content verbatim without authorization or proper referencing respectively citation with attribution is considered an infringement of the copyright in most cases.
But the basic requirement for all plaintiffs remains in force, namely to demonstrate the infringement of their rights and properties to the courts.

And at least one exclusion of the copyright still exists with for example the very special and therefore original and unique artistic performance and reproduction of C.S. with our Ontologic System (OS).
See also the comments to the other quotes above and below, and the conclusion below.

We also note that Perplexity AI has made a different plagiarism and fake, which uses our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic Programming (OP), Ontologic Computing (OC), and Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot) with our what is wrongly called Conversational Artificial Intelligence (CAI or ConAI) and (Information) Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) for generating and presenting the search results respectively answers.
See also the note

We quote and translate a fourth report, which is about the case Andrea Bartz et al. vs. Anthropic PBC and was publicized on the
25th of June 2025 (yesterday): "Anthropic can partially fend off copyright lawsuit from book authors
Anthropic copied books without permission and used them for LLM training. The legitimacy depends on the method of procurement, says a U.S. court.
Anthropic has won a partial victory in a dispute over possible copyright infringement in Large Language Model (LLM) training using unlicensed copies of books. A U.S. federal district court has partially granted Anthropic's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the use of the copies for AI training is permissible, only the downloading of electronic books from "pirate sites" is illegal. Both Anthropic and the book authors concerned can appeal.
Dozens of lawsuits alleging copyright infringement by AI operators are pending in the U.S.A.. In this case, three book authors, Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, have sued. Anthropic has created a digital library without licenses, that is supposed to contain as many books as possible from around the world. The proceedings before the U.S. Federal District Court for Northern California involve several groups of actions:

The specific complaint does not allege that Anthropics LLM has distributed texts protected by intellectual property rights to LLM users. This is because specially installed filter software has prevented this (at least so far). The lawsuit also does not address the production and use of further copies of works for this filter software. [See the other lawsuits.]

Fair use
Anthropic has requested that the court recognize all allegations as fair use and discontinue the proceedings. The goal of U.S. copyright law is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". If it helps to achieve this goal, external works can be used even if the rights holders do not agree. This doctrine is known as fair use. The law does not conclusively regulate when exactly fair use exists. That would be difficult.
In the event of a dispute, four factors must be examined [(list points added)]:

The four assessment results are then weighed against each other.
This is what the Federal District Court did. In doing so, it divided the facts of the case into three parts and ruled as follows:

Use of the unauthorized copies for the training of LLM
The type of use (1st factor) speaks for fair use, because the use was "spectacularly" transformative. Anthropic's aim was not to replace the works used, but to generate new texts using artificial intelligence. [HyperBingo!!! For us and not the others. And even the training of an LLM is irrelevant, because the relevant transformative and new expression of idea of C.S. already is to "generate all texts, images, [etc.]" (on an Interconnected network (Internet), World Wide Web (WWW) scale) by using (transformative, generative, and creative) Bionics in addition to the fact that this has been created as part of our Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontologic Model (OM), Ontologic Computing (OC), and Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot). We also have 2 statements made by William "Bill" Gates about our OS in 2007 and 2016, which sound similarly surprised and fascinated about our original and unique transformative and new and also spectacular works of art.]
The nature of the works (2nd factor), on the other hand, argues slightly against fair use, whether they are non-fiction or fiction. [Transformative means transformative. And for our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including our Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM) and General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), all types of works are of concern.]
As to the volume copied (3rd factor), Anthropic indisputably used entire books, and lots of them. While this was not strictly necessary for LLM's training - Anthropic could, for example, have paid authors to write new texts, or simply used fewer works or works by other authors than the plaintiff - it was reasonably necessary. And the latter is the legal standard. [Transformative means transformative, which is independent of the volume copied respectively extent of use.]
Anthropic had used particularly good books, which had "convincing advantages". And so the judge surprises by finding that the 3rd factor (extent of use) is in favor of fair use, even though the defendant copied entire books. [HyperBingo!!! For us and not the others. For our coherent Ontologic Model (OM), including our Foundational Model (FM), Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM), Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale, etc., all types of works are of concern.]
In terms of the impact on the potential market or value of the work (4th factor), the court found that Anthropic's use to train its LLM did not displace demand for copies of the work. While the unlicensed practice may prevent the creation of a market for licensing works for LLM training, this economic goal of the book authors is not covered by copyright law. However, the judge does not stop at interpreting the 4th factor neutrally, but surprises with the finding that the use of the entire books speaks in favor of fair use. [In general, an artist holds the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights for the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) and said artist can do this in all ways possible. But we also note: HyperBingo!!! For us and not the others. Artificial Neural Network General Purpose Model (ANNGPM), Foundation Model (FM), General Purpose Language Model (GPLM), Global Language Model (GLM), Ultra Large Language Model (ULLM), Large Language Model (LLM) on a World Wide Web (WWW) scale, Global Brain (GB), Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW) and LM, etc., Universal Brain Space (UBS) or Global Brain of the second generation (GB 2.0), etc. based on the use of the entire Interconnected network (Internet), WWW, etc. confirmed as original and unique transformative and new expression of idea.]

Scans of the legally purchased print editions
The type of use (1st factor) speaks in favor of fair use because the use was transformative, as Anthropic destroyed the print editions and used the scans exclusively within the company. They were not passed on to third parties.
The mere fact that the digital copy takes up less space and is searchable makes the copying "transformative". Although the U.S. Copyright Act (s. 106 (1)) expressly prohibits the copying of works without the consent of the copyright holder, in this case "we have the unusual situation where one copy (the digital copy, note) completely replaced another (the printed copy, note)". A new line of case law is emerging here, should this legal opinion be confirmed by higher courts. [That is just plain nonsense. Firstly, scanning with or without Optical Character Recognition (OCR), digitization, etc. are purely mechanical actions and therefore the results are not considered as creative, transformative works of art at all. Secondly, an expression of idea is independent of the media.]
The nature of the works (2nd factor) argues against fair use, whether they are non-fiction or fiction. [See the comment above.] [(break added)]
The scope of use (third factor), on the other hand, argued in favor of fair use because Anthropic had destroyed the printed originals. Anthropic could undisputedly have kept the printed books for as long as it wished. Therefore, there were no additional copies, the judge reinforced his new legal approach.
In terms of the impact on the potential market or value of the work (4th factor), the judge believes that the rights holders are not entitled to sell more expensive e-books. Anthropic just bought used print editions and then digitized them.The 4th factor therefore does not weigh in favour of either side as far as the digitization of legally purchased print editions is concerned. [However, an artist holds the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights for the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)).]

The downloaded e-books
Before Anthropic started scanning legally purchased print editions, it downloaded more than seven million e-books from the Internet without bothering with licenses. The judge makes short work of this: "The person who copies textbooks from pirate sites has infringed copyright, end of debate. This decision also rejects Anthropic's claim that the use of the copies (...) can be excused simply because some of them will one day be used to train LLM. This decision doubts that there is any copyright infringer, who could ever clear the hurdle of explaining why downloading from pirate sites of copies he could have purchased or otherwise legally obtained was reasonably necessary for any subsequent fair use." [This argument of the judge is also not reasonable. In case of fair use the source of an original work is irrelevant. But the use of a pirate site might be illegal in general.]
But even if it were, that wouldn't help Anthropic. Because the company kept illegally downloaded copies even after it decided not to use them to train LLM. Anthropic simply wanted to have a library of all the books in the world. [Indeed, in this specific case one cannot claim for fair use, because there was no use for the creation of a new expression of idea at all.]
Thus, the nature of the use (1st factor), as well as the nature of the works (2nd factor), their volume used (3rd factor), and the potential impact on the e-book market (4th factor) argue against fair use. [(break added)]
Anthropic's argument that not all downloaded books are available on the market falls flat, because all of the plaintiff authors' books are indeed available for purchase. In some cases, Anthropic later actually purchased such copies of the works (which, according to the court, is expressly not an excuse, but may reduce the damages). And Anthropic's second argument, according to which a single downloaded copy carries no economic weight, also failed to convince the judge: allowing Anthropic to make a copy would ultimately mean allowing anyone to make a copy who might subsequently want to do something transformative with it - and that would ruin the market. [Well, exactly.]
Anthropic has therefore prevailed in the first instance, with the exception of the allegation of infringement by downloading the unlicensed e-books. A courtroom trial, probably with a jury, is to be held on this aspect in order to determine the legal consequences. [...] Both sides in the proceedings can appeal against the unsuccessful claims.
The case is Bartz et al v Anthropic PBC and is pending in the U.S. Federal District Court for Northern California (Case No. 3:24-cv-05417). The impact of the legal interpretations on other copyright proceedings remains to be seen."

Comment
See the comments in the text quoted above and the note

See also the cases

We quote and translate a fifth report, which is about the case Sarah Silverman et al. vs. Meta (Facebook) and was publicized today: "Pirated copies for AI training: Meta gets justice, the plaintiffs get a rebuke
Meta downloaded shadow libraries for AI training. Nevertheless, the authors failed in court - due to several errors.
A court in the U.S. state of California has ruled in favor of Facebook parent company Meta in a legal dispute with 13 well-known authors over the permissibility of AI training on copyrighted books. [...]
The judge responsible, Vince Chhabria, used his reasoning to explain in detail why the ruling in the specific case could not have been any different. According to him, the "half-hearted" argumentation of the plaintiffs, who had proceeded incorrectly, was responsible. The ruling explicitly does not mean that Meta's actions were lawful.

Rebuke for the plaintiffs
The proceedings brought by Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Junot Díaz, among others (case reference: 23-cv-03417-VC), concerned the allegation that Meta used data from LibGen, among others, to train the Llama AI models. This shadow library provides free access to copyright-protected literature - in Germany, access to it is blocked by a DNS block. In court, Meta then admitted, among other things, that the books had been obtained via BitTorrent. However, they had not been shared. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally authorized the use of the works in this way.
Despite this, the judge has now ruled in favor of Meta. He explained that the plaintiffs had merely referred to the fact that the Llama AI trained with their works could reproduce short excerpts from them and that the unauthorized training had reduced their ability to license their works themselves. He rejects both arguments. On the one hand, the AI could not reproduce so much text "that it is relevant". On the other hand, the plaintiffs have no right to a market for the licensing of their works. However, because they had focused on these two arguments, the court had no choice but to rule against them.
Immediately after these statements, however, the judge writes about the argument with which the plaintiffs could potentially have been successful. If they had explained that Meta had copied their works in order to flood and oversaturate the market with similar books, he might have found in their favor. However, they had not responded to this at all and had not provided any evidence of this. The consequences of the ruling are therefore limited. The ruling comes just one day after a partial victory for Anthropic in a similar case."

Comment
For sure, it is very well known that a plaintiff must argue much more precisely, exhaustively, and convincingly, and also has to present as much as possible substantial and profound evidence to a court, for example in this case original (created phrase, excerpt) versus input (prompt, command), output (generated phrase, excerpt).

The "certain unique phrases from their works" or "short excerpts" are quotes, which have to be marked as such and properly referenced respectively cited with attribution accordingly. In addition, the citing work must be must be concerned with the original work, but not merely a verbatim copy of it.
In this relation, the arguments of the judge are just plain wrong, or better said utter nonsense, when arguing that the plaintif did not include the fact that the defendant "could reproduce short excerpts from [the original works]" and monetized the works. Very surprisingly and incomprehensibly, unique or unambiguous phrases or (short but relevant) excerpts seem not to be viewed as quotes by the judge or were not presented crystal clearly as such fact to the judge by the plaintiff.
That argument is also contradictory to the argument given before, that AI would not be able to reproduce so much text or even a whole book. Similar books means extensive copy for commercial and also competing use.
On the one hand, AI can easily "reproduce so much text "that it is relevant"", as surprisingly also argued by the judge himself in relation to the generation of whole similar books "in order to flood and oversaturate the market with similar books".
On the other hand, the length of a plagiarism is not relevant at all, specifically if the members of the addressed and interested public can be confused about the true origin of it.
Ultimately, the

Furthermore, that other argument is also just plain nonsense, because an artist holds the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights for the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) and said artist can do this in all ways possible. See also the Article 9.2, point c) of the International Copyright Law about the doctrine of fair use.

For sure, an artist has the exclusive right for all kinds of exploitation, or otherwise an author would not be able to sell a copyright to a movie producer or a game manufacturer.

The legality depends on the specific case of reproduction of an original work, specifically if the minimum threshold for fair use has been met respectively if a derivative work with an original and unique transformative and new expression of idea has been created.
But the lawsuit is ongoing and this is only the first instance. In the case Thomson Reuters→Westlaw vs. Ross Intelligence, which is very similar to this and the other cases quoted in this clarification, the plaintiff won.
See also the summarizing conclusion of this clarification below.

Conclusion
Simply said, they have read, scanned, and scraped the whole Interconected network (Internet) and World Wide Web (WWW) to train an Artificial Neural Network Language Model (ANNLM) or other types of our Ontologic Model (OM). See the related publications of us referenced below and put the pieces together.

One of the related expressions of idea of C.S. created with our Evoos and our OS is to use Bionics (e.g. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Computational Intelligence (CI), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Evolutionary Computing (EC), Fuzzy Logic (FL), etc.) (and also Cybernetics and Ontonics) for the generation of all texts and other kinds of work, inclusive new texts, and other kinds of work even at ultra large, web scale (e.g. Universal Brain Space (UBS), Global Brain 2.0, Web 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, etc.), which is even independent of training an Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Large Language Model (LLM), etc. from the legal point of view, which again is what we also always point out in this context of our Ontologic Computing (OC), including transformative, generative, and creative Bionics, and Ontologic roBot (OB or OntoBot).

Using copyrighted materials, personal features, etc. for the training of a technology (e.g. system, platform), good (e.g. application, robot), or service based on the field of Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, FL, etc.) without authorization or exception to the law constitutes an infringement of personal rights and properties (e.g. copyright).

Using copyrighted materials, personal features, etc. for the filtering of copyrighted materials generated with a technology (e.g. system, platform), good (e.g. application, robot), or service based on the field of Bionics (e.g. AI, ML, CI, ANN, EC, FL, etc.) without authorization or exception to the law constitutes an infringement of personal rights and properties (e.g. copyright).
Somehow, this additional processing is reducing the approach of ANNLM ad absurdum.

The fair use clause of the copyright law is valid, specifically in the case of our revolutionary, spectacular, and epochal Evoos and OS, but only if a truly transformative and new expression of idea has been created, is performed, and is reproduced, which

We would also like to recall that "[t]he legal doctrine of fair use, known as the fair use clause, "acknowledges certain exceptions to this right.
But Article 9.2 of the International Copyright Law places strict limits on the scope and reach of those exceptions.
[In this respect, e]xceptions
a) must be limited to certain specific cases,
b) provide that such reproduction does not conflict with [the author's respectively creator's] normal exploitation of the work and [...]
c) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author [respectively creator].""
It is quite easy to understand.
Point a) is no problem, because our OM, FM, ANNGPM, FM, GPLM, GLM, ULLM, LLM on a WWW scale is transformative as such no matter how deep, how broad, and how much the material for transformation (e.g. training) is.
Point b) is said above in the second point, though the term "normal exploitation" is critical.
Point c) is said above in the second point, and also interesting, because the judge in the case Sarah Silverman et al. vs. Meta (Facebook) argued wrongly that "the plaintiffs have no right to a market for the licensing of their works". Of course, they do have the moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights for the exclusive exploitation (e.g. commercialization (e.g. monetization)) and if a new possibility for this emerges, then they are definitely entitled as the first ones to exploit this as well (compare this with music on records, tapes, compact discs, etc. and the new possibility on MP3 file and by online streaming), and the judge with that nonsense argument and the company with that act do unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of them.

Others cannot claim fair use, because

{according to the U.S.American copyright authority (!?)}In addition, AI-generated works are not copyrightable, also because of mechanical work.

Honestly, some arguments of the judges in case of Anthropic and Meta (Facebook) regarding fair use, citation with attribution, etc. are utter nonsense, which makes us wonder and raises questions.
Somehow, we have the impression that the courts got a directive by the U.S.American administration and its Department of Justice (DoJ) to rule in that uncomprehensible way, because the lobbyist of the so-called AI industry want to use copyrighted material for training their plagiarisms and fakes of the related parts of our original and unique Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) and Ontologic System (OS).

But it really looks like that a certain group does not want to comply with the copyright law anymore. The example with the MP3 and online streaming shows that this will not work in case of Bionics independently of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation.
See also the note

But even when other artists will get their rights completely in this relation, it would not help much, because potential licensees of their original and unique works do not get the allowance and license for the performance and reproduction of our original and unique, spectacullary transformative and new works of art, including our OM, ANNGPM, GPLM, GLM, ULLM, LLM on a WWW scale in the legal scope of ... the Ontoverse (Ov) from our SOPR, because this is SoftBionics (SB) and belongs to the SB, which is part of the exclusive infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies.

We also recall that the ordinary technological progress or technical benefit for the society is only given, if an expression of idea is not ....

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

and the other publications cited therein.

And do not forget to mention the creation, compilation, integration, etc. of the fields of Distributed operating system (Dos), Peer-to-Peer Virtual Machine (P2PVM), operating system Virtual Machine (osVM) or Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM), operating system-level Virtualization (osV) or containerization, (lightweight container) orchestration, microVirtual Machine (mVM), operating system-level Sandbox (osS) or container sandbox, Java Jini, the Unix Way, Service-Oriented technologies (SOx), microService technologies (mSx), Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), Cloud Computing (CC x.0), Cloud-native technologies (Cnx), Interconnected supercomputer (Intersup), Cyber-Physical System (CPS x.0), Ontologic Net of Things (ONoT), Internet of Things (IoT x.0), Ubiquitous System (UbiS x.0), Networked Embedded System (NES x.0), Model-Based Autonomous System (MBAS) and Immobile Robotic System (ImRS or Immobot), Ambient Intelligence (AmI x.0), Physical Computing (PhyC), Evernet, Web of Things (WoT), Ontologic Web of Things (OWoT), Industry 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Cybernetical Intelligence (CI or CybI), Universal Brain Space (UBS), Global Brain (GB x.0), cybernetic reflection, augmentation, and extension, etc., Ontologic Holon (Onton), ontological argument, Belief System (BS), Caliber/Calibre, eXtended Reality (XR), Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), Ontoscope (Os), and much more

Furthermore, we already showed that the infringements of the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation were and still are based on extensive or even complete copies made for commercial and also competing use.

Obviously, the problem of the plagiarists is not only the question about legal fair use, but also plain copyright infringement in relation to the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the ouevre of C.S..
As we said, our set of legal documents is much more substantial, and Silicon Valley, Silicon Alley, and Silicon at other locations are in deep trouble. None of them should bet on deficits and incompetent judges, when proceeding at the courts.
In fact, the fruits are hanging much higher in the trees.

28.June.2025

14:00 UTC+2
Vatican with popes infringing moral rights of C.S.

By usurping the discussion about essential parts of the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S., specifically in relation to moral and ethics, the Vatican with the former pope and the actual pope is

which constitutes an infringement of the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights and other rights of C.S. even deliberately.

21:48 UTC+2
CentML blacklisted

This case is related to the exlusive and mandatory infrastructrues of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities, technologies, goods, and services, including our

and is self-explanatory, but is only for formal reasons, because it does not matter anymore due to the reason that CentML is now a subsidiary of the company Nvidia.

By the way:

22:09 UTC+2
SOPR considering an extra for Nvidia customers

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to add a substantial extra to all royalties being due under the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR for the customers of illegal deployments and partners in illegal activities of the company Nvidia. :)

As we always said, we will not pay for the mess, but do have a lot of possibilities to correct erroneous developments on the one hand and it will not become cheaper on the other hand.

23:21 UTC+2
Xiaomi has to comply with ToS

Terms of Service (ToS)

For everybody, who has not seen what the Ontoscope with Wheels or Ontoscope on Wheels of the company Xiaomi include:

The company Xiaomi ... (see for example the note Foxconn still in LaLaLand of the 19th of October 2023).

30.June.2025

19:08 UTC+2
Siemens still in LaLaLand

21:49 UTC+2
SOPR already said that does not work that way

We took a look at an interview with the federal minister for digital and state modernization of the F.R.Germany, which was conducted at the German conference for digitalization and media re:publica on the 27th of May 2025 and refer to it in short form:
Federal minister: "How can we use providers from Europe for data centers? How can we use providers from Europe to build AI solutions and cloud solutions?"
SOPR: As always, this is the wrong approach, because once again they are just chasing the trend, that in both cases was already started with the creation of our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) 25 years ago.
Furthermore, we have already made it crystal clear that this market is gone and a meaningful and legal market access is only possible via the support of C.S. and our corporation, i.e. via our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR), in particular by using the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SORP and our other Societies. That is how it is.

Federal minister: "65% of the federal government's cloud services are in the hands of 3 other service providers that means we have to act as a competitor here [...]"
SOPR: The law is already the compromise, which establishes the level playing field.
For legal reasons, specifically the required compliance with the

no competition for the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation exists at all, but this will be 90 to 100% in the hands of our SOPR, in particular because of the exclusive and mandatory infrastructures of our SOPR and our other Societies with their set of foundational and essential facilities (e.g. data center, backbone, core network, or fabric), technologies (e.g. system, platform, architecture, framework, model, etc.), technologies (e.g. application, device, vehicle, robot, etc.), and services, including their related platforms for Ontologic Application and Ontologic Services (OAOS).
For the same reasons, the following also applies: "Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter of the music band Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham in relation to a 2 second sample of the song "Metall auf Metall" of the album T.E.E., 2019]
That is how it is.

Federal minister: "[...] the cornerstones for digitalization are always data protection and also cyber security [...] the balance is not right and that is not a contradiction [...] protection, security, but at the same time openness to innovation [...]"
SOPR: 100% data protection and 100% cyber security is the goal and it is not about the balance of both, but about maximizing both and the harmony between the two. And that's something, for example, where the location can differentiate itself in global competition. That is how it is.

Federal minister: "[...] where do we build these [AI] models in Europe and train them with our data, with our value system."
SOPR: There is no such discussion because there is no U.S. American, no European, no P.R. Chinese vision, creation, compilation, composition, integration, architecture, and so on, but only our original and unique Ontological System (OS) worldwide. Other people's models either do not exist or applications and services based on other people's models do not exist. This leads back to the first and second point. That is how it is.

Federal minister: "[...] sovereignty also means that if I don't want certain platforms to operate the way they do, then let's work together to try to pull something like that up in Europe [...]."
SOPR: The sovereignty thing is total marketing nonsense from Nvidia and co, because there is no U.S.American, no European, no P.R.Chinese vision, creation, compilation, composition, integration, architecture, and so on, but only our original and unique Ontological System (OS) worldwide. This leads back to the first point. That is how it is.

Since quite some time no doubt exists anymore that C.S. has created this whole Ontologic System (OS) with its Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Ontoverse (Ov) and New Reality (NR), and also Ontoscope (Os), and all the others have merely taken the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S. as source of inspiration and blueprint to violate the exclusive moral rights respectively Lanham (Trademark) rights of C.S., the competition rights of our corporation, and other rights of both.
And they are still refusing to respect the rights and properties of C.S. and our corporation and of course unconditionally.
And nobody has spoken to us yet. That is not how it works.
And the mechanics of the market do not work like that either.
One cannot make a constitutional state and a democracy with nice and snappy, but eventually unsubstantial patter and also permanent lawbreaking, including serious criminal copyright infringement, competition law infringement, conspiracy, and corruption.
That is also how it is.

GOAR hat bereits gesagt, dass das so nicht funktioniert
Wir haben uns ein Interview mit dem Bundesminister für Digitales und Staatsmodernisierung der B.R.Deutschland angesehen, das auf der deutschen Konferenz für Digitalisierung und Medien re:publica am 27. Mai 2025 geführt wurde und nehmen in Kurzform Bezug darauf:
Bundesminister: "Wie können wir Anbieter aus Europa nutzen für Datencenter? Wie können wir Anbieter aus Europa dafür nutzen, dass wir KI-Lösungen bauen und Cloud-Lösungen bauen?"
SOPR: Das ist wie immer der falsche Ansatz, weil man wieder nur dem Trend hinterherläuft, der in beiden Fällen bereits mit der Kreation von unserem Evolutionären Betriebssystem==Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) vor 25 Jahren begonnen wurde.
Außerdem haben wir bereits kristallklar erläutert, dass dieser Markt weg ist und ein sinnvoller und legaler Marktzugang nur noch über die Unterstützung von C.S. und unserem Unternehmen, also über unsere Gesellschaft für Ontologische Aufführung und Reproduktion (GOAR), möglich ist, insbesondere durch die Nutzung der exklusiven und obligatorischen Infrastrukturen von unserer GOAR und unseren anderen Gesellschaften. Das ist so.

Bundesminister: "65% der Cloud-Leistungen des Bundes sind in den Händen von 3 anderen Dienstleistern, das heißt wir müssen hier als Wettbewerber auftreten [...]"
SOPR: Das Gesetz ist bereits der Kompromiss, der einheitliche Wettbewerbsbedingungen beziehungsweise Wettbewerbsgleichheit etabliert.
Aus rechtlichen Gründen, insbesondere der vorgeschriebenen Einhaltung der

gibt es deshalb auch gar keinen Wettbewerb um die Rechte und Eigentüer von C.S. und unserem Unternehmen, sondern das werden 90 bis 100% in den Händen von unserer GOAR sein, insbesondere wegen den exklusiven und obligatorischen Infrastrukturen von unserer GOAR und unseren anderen Gesellschaften mit ihrem Set oder Satz oder ihrer Zusammenstellung von grundlegenden und wesentlichen Einrichtungen (z. B. Rechenzentren), Technologien (z. B. Systeme, Rahmenwerke, Plattformen), Technologien (z. B. Anwendungen, Geräte, Roboter) und Dienste, einschließlich der zugehörigen Plattformen für Ontologische Anwendungen und Ontologische Dienste (OAOD).
Aus den gleichen rechtlichen Gründen gilt auch das Folgende: "Bei uns ist es üblich, dass man vorher fragt.==It is customary with us to ask in advance.", [Ralf Hütter von der Musikgruppe Kraftwerk vs. Moses Pelham im Zusammenhang mit einem 2 Sekunden Schnipsel von dem Lied "Metall auf Metall" von dem Album T.E.E., 2019]. Das ist so.

Bundesminister: "[...] die Grundpfeiler für Digitalisierung immer Datenschutz und auch Cyber-Sicherheit [...] die Balance nicht stimmt und das ist kein Widerspruch [...] Schutz, Sicherheit, aber gleichzeitig auch Innovationsoffenheit [...]"
SOPR: 100% Datenschutz und 100% Cyber-Sicherheit ist das Ziel und es geht nicht um die Balance von beiden, sondern um die Maximierung von beiden und die Harmonie zwischen beiden. Und genau das ist zum Beispiel etwas, wo der Standort sich im weltweiten Wettbewerb unterscheiden kann. Das ist so.

Bundesminister: "[...] wo bauen wir diese [KI-]Modelle in Europa und trainieren das mit unseren Daten, mit unserem Wertesystem."
SOPR: Diese Diskussion gibt es überhaupt nicht, weil es keine U.S.Amerikanisches, keine Europäisches, keine V.R.Chinesisches Vision, Kreation, Kompilierung, Komposition, Integration, Architektur und so weiter gibt, sondern nur unser originales und einzigartiges Ontologisches System (OS) weltweit. Die Modelle von Anderen haben entweder gar nicht zu existieren oder Anwendungen und Dienste, die auf Modelle von Anderen basieren, haben gar nicht zu existieren. Dies führt wieder zu dem ersten und zweitem Punkt. Das ist so.

Bundesminister: "[...] zur Souveränitat gehört eben auch, wenn ich bestimmte Platformen, wie die agieren, nicht möchte, dann lassen sie uns gemeinsam versuchen so 'was in Europa auch hochzuziehen [...]."
SOPR: Das mit der Souveränitat ist der totale Marketingschwachsinn von Nvidia und Co., weil es kein U.S.Amerikanisches, kein Europäisches, kein V.R.Chinesisches Vision, Kreation, Kompilierung, Komposition, Integration, Architektur und so weiter gibt, sondern nur unser originales und einzigartiges Ontologisches System (OS) weltweit. Dies führt wieder zu dem ersten Punkt. Das ist so.

Seit geraumer Zeit besteht kein Zweifel mehr daran, dass C.S. dieses ganze Ontologische System (OS) mit seiner Ontologischen Systemarchitektur (OSA), Ontoverse (Ov) und New Reality (NR), und Ontoscope (Os) geschaffen hat, und alle anderen lediglich die originalen und einzigartigen ArtWorks (AWs) und weitere Intellectual Properties (IPs) aus dem Werk von C. S. als Inspirationsquelle und Blaupause genommen, um die exklusiven moralischen Rechte bzw. Lanham (Trademark) Rechte von C.S., die Wettbewerbsrechte unseres Unternehmens und andere Rechte von beiden zu verletzen.
Und sie weigern sicher weiterhin die Rechte und Eigentüer von C.S. und unserem Unternehmen zu respektieren und zwar selbstverständlich bedingslos.
Und mit uns hat immer noch keiner gesprochen. So funktioniert das nicht.
Und auch die Mechanik des Marktes funktioniert so nicht.
Mit schönen und flotten aber letztendlich substanzlosen Sprüchen sowie permanentem Rechtsbruch, inklusive schwerkrimineller Urheberrechtsverletzung, Wettbewerbsrechtsverletzung, Konspiration und Korruption, kann man keinen Rechtsstaat und keine Demokratie machen.
Auch das ist so.

23:36 UTC+2
SOPR considering an extra for Palantir customers

Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) is considering to add a substantial extra to all royalties being due under the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our SOPR for the customers of illegal deployments and partners in illegal activities of the company Palantir Technologies. :)

As we always said, we will not pay for the mess, but do have a lot of possibilities to correct erroneous developments on the one hand and it will not become cheaper on the other hand.