The recent decision on the Qualcomm/Apple lawsuit that took place in San Diego, CA implored many questions that were not actually addressed in the reporting on the proceedings but are pertinent for us to explicate. Primary among them is in regards to where we find microchips and semiconductors used beyond the actual handheld mobile/cellular device. Consider licensing rights for development of technologies involving voice activation. Insofar as a “voice” and the relationship with frequency conversion is so important, what, if any, rights are connected to “voice files” or “voice spectrum” usage involving users of technology? The amount and number of patents referenced in the information released about the case is substantial enough to ask how many of these patents are developments on past technologies or “new innovations” independent of past developments that were already patented. 

 

Royalties on licenses and patents provide a “node” that can serve as an aspect of technology engagement or exchange that can be applied to protect against overwriting command sequences in specific technology execution. Refusal to pay royalties implies an unwillingness to acknowledge source and origin and respect concepts of “informed consent” and “compensation” in regards to corporate interlocutors. What does this portend regarding corporate use or development of technologies that involve access to or use of human biodata?

 

How much of Qualcomm’s microchip technology, including “new” 5G technology, is actually based on development resulting from engagement or intersection with human users? Then does any biological impact of that technology’s engagement become proprietary to companies like Qualcomm or Apple? What happens to rights on future development, or legacy, in terms of technology development under these circumstances?

 

As younger people -- including children -- engage more and more with technology then more biodata can be obtained and used in technology development. “Metadata” and “biometric” data is already commonplace and we are urged to accept normalization to its capture and redistribution elsewhere for all sorts of undisclosed purposes. What then becomes of “intangible” property created by users of technology? How is intangible property accessed by technology developers and employed? How does the distribution of a person’s intangible or intellectual property then engage with or interface with technologies that were developed via access to past research and developments using one’s biodata?

 

The concern here should be guarding against corporations or research and development bodies claiming rights to future products of one/a people who were a part of earlier R&D regarding specific technology products. It is undeniable that there has been much deception and an intentional effort to undermine, degrade and depreciate certain producers and developers in consideration of the implementation of their capabilities with regards to others incapable of the same level or type of productivity or operating at the same level of efficiency. Sabotage has become a very important part of R&D in the stead of protecting the long-term viability of a specific product, or contributors to that product, and that is part of what is being reflected in the proceedings concerning the Qualcomm/Apple lawsuit. In this matter an inspection of the specific role of the United States as a national entity and the jurisdictions under which these legal proceedings are engaged becomes important. That Qualcomm intentionally initiated legal proceedings in both Germany and China was an attempt to insert its concerns into the European and Asian systems. How much, however, of their original contentions regarding the Apple ethos and processes was actually connected to policy and operations specific to the United States? How much of the R&D that went into the development of the contended product lines was provided within the United States needs to be examined closely.

 

Insofar as interaction with human beings in R&D especially for cellular technologies is a primary component to innovation then the states of mind and circumstances under which human beings as either test subjects or product testers needs to be assessed. In notes regarding a review of the original National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 I proffer a theory that much of the experimentation that underpinned the unfolding of the Affordable Care Act was actually correlated with aspects of the Space Act to provide a means by which to mischaracterize special skills that human beings were developing in connection with increased use of and engagement with technology as being about “disability” so as to intentionally dispossess people of their intellectual and intangible property rights. We need an evaluation of the relationship between the patents of dispute and technologies of contention in these legal proceedings and any sort of overlap with projects for National Security or so-called “National Defense” purposes that may be abused in order to divest people of their property rights under the guise of “healthcare.”

 

Much has been made in U.S. policy and media about threats posed by the “nuclear” capabilities of other countries. While Germany has a nuclear energy sector, the potential peril of Germany’s nuclear energy sector -- or the nuclear energy sectors of other European countries -- has not been given the same sort of scrutiny as countries who were purported to be misusing their energy programs for development of nuclear weapons. The President of the United States just last year commissioned a new round of development on a new nuclear warhead. This came after more than 10 years of manipulation of U.S. domestic policy by the former President and members of Congress around addressing issues with nuclear energy, including what later amounted to a collapse of a nuclear material disposal facility in the NorthWest in Spring of 2017. Certainly failure to address appropriate disposal of nuclear materials -- including spent uranium fuel rods, many of which are “temporarily” housed onsite AT nuclear facilities due to lack of confirmed permanent offsite disposal options -- has not been addressed with the same level of alarm or concerns domestically or by the international community as the nuclear programs of other countries. This also includes our relationship with China, who as recently as early 2016 was alleged in English-language publications to be working toward the development of cold fusion nuclear energy. Would those developments have anything to do with earlier reports that Germany and China were discussing a partnership to develop nuclear energy facilities?

 

In recent years the United States has made much about allegations of “Russian hacking” in the 2016 Presidential election. But little has been made about the involvement of Russian capital in local and state pension systems. California’s pension system was reputed to have included investments from numerous Russian capital firms prior to any allegations of “Russian hacking” in the election; to this day despite all the concern about “Russian hacking” no one has said anything about implicating Russian capital investment in public pension systems for its potential complicity with this “hacking.” At the same time, former executives at Deutsche Bank and other German finance institutions were engaged in comprehensive efforts regarding investment and pension reform in the United States during the 2016 election cycle. In Illinois alone in a less than 6-month period, three former German banking executives were appointed to financial or pension systems commissions in the State of Illinois by Gov. Bruce Rauner. Even as Chancellor Angela Merkel was publicly announcing that she would not support a bailout of Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank was sponsoring investment conferences in Las Vegas, Nevada and Orlando, Florida at the end of the 2016 election season. These matters cannot be overlooked for at the least of reasons because Illinois houses more nuclear power plants than any other state in the United States, as well as several that are supposedly in various states of decommissioning.

 

If the United States is attempting to use either via derivatives or via some other technological capabilities “space” and laws related to space to engage human beings, their biodata, or their personal private intangible or intellectual property in some sort of project related to its nuclear energy programs, then one needs to ask what specific technology companies would be participating and how. If this is the case, then the concerns regarding payment for royalties take on a new dimension. And, that the primary company of concern regarding the greatest potential for advancement brings in China and Germany to strategic litigation scenarios also behooves one to inquire what, if any, express intent does Qualcomm and/or Apple have in mind in regards to the space ambitions of China and Germany, or any potential collaboration on the development of cold fusion technology involving Germany and China or others?

 

How much human biodata has already been used anonymously or with accreditation? Was it compensated to the individual or was there some other financial compensation arrangement that was made? How can individuals or groups of people assure that they have access to rights on future developments or innovations in these areas? It is important that appropriate systems of standards and valuations are adhered to, especially if the intended implications of the processes are to use newer, untested or unverified technologies in connection with any technologies necessary for the safe and effective operationability of nuclear power sources.

 

One primary concern is assuring members of the public know their rights. Education on technologies and their biological impacts needs to be overt. So do the implications of various coding aspects of different languages as well as how their intended functionality can be misapplied. The ambiguous coding terms and associations in the "symbolic" languages that are used by Apple for and in regards to its technologies -- ostensibly in an effort to be easier to program -- have inherent within them numerous opportunities for sabotage. Is there an intentional effort to defraud Qualcomm in Apple's refusal to abide by the original contract terms regarding royalty payments as part of some sort of subversive redistribution of material and non-material assets? Were they able to succeed because Qualcomm was intent on assuring that THEIR potential culpability in availing themselves of undue advantage accorded to them via access to the intentionally dispossessed intangible and intellectual property of people who had been engaged in human test subject experimentation via fraudulent "health" treatment was obscured? Technology “risks” associated with interfacing with localities or human bodies should be considered a sort of public health consideration that merits exclusion from the potential to be ascribed as a corporate trade secret or copyrightable (including “classified”) proprietary information. A proper case on these matters could do that. Only then can informed consent around technology be secured, which is necessary to achieve social and personal responsibility and accountability. It is not acceptable to merely attempt to sublimate processes or engage in deceptive practices that mischaracterize human biological interactions with the application of technologies in particular manners or places as being a “health concern” and then placing people into a “trust” so that special interests can avail themselves of the resultant technological developments. The outstanding questions of the Qualcomm/Apple lawsuit are found herein.

 

It is important to develop standards related to digital and commercial space technologies that may augment or enhance human capabilities that are developing as technology develops. Particular consideration needs to be implemented regarding access to and by children and minors in consideration of biological and cognizability in engaging with or via digital technologies. This includes mediums such as cell phones and tablets and also how transmissions of digital files involving children and minors are connected to -- or disconnected from -- other transmissions over satellite networks.

​

*     *     *

​

The next stage regarding revisioning and refining of existing space law is important. A noticeable shift has occurred in the last decade especially to integrate conscious association of capabilities and rights within mechanical devices, including automobiles and other “vehicles” or modes of transportation. This needs to be considered both in regards to its implications regarding processes of financialization and insurance, but also in terms of functionality, control and “command” regarding operability. With increased electronic capabilities and automation, the reality of sublimation of command adherence without conscious understanding of the logic behind the sequence becomes more potentially perilous. There are plenty examples in the situation elucidated above regarding Qualcomm and Apple for reference. Insofar as we are verged upon the threshold of cybernetic-biological enhancements that can give us more ready access to and engagement with any number or method of technologies, rational comprehension of the implications and processes is essential to protect against exploitation and expropriation. These factors are especially important for considering the pace at which emerging technologies can be positioned to absorb and integrate data for appropriate implementation. This requires consistent standards adherence by legacy technologies to assure their reliability as well as commitment to nourishing confidence and competence in regards to integrating emerging technologies.

 

Differences in current international space treaties and the aims of differing understandings of the importance of certain precepts needs to also be reconsidered immediately. Most notably is the current difference in space treaties considering exploration of celestial bodies (see below for links). There were two different versions recommended at two different times that explicate different terms regarding “exploration” that need to be reconsidered when we consider the above-mentioned issues. The ambiguity of the language leaves open possibilities for derivating the efforts connected to space exploration to other processes that potentially impact human cybernetic possibilities. In many manners it points to considerations of the role of personal, private property and who should have access to it at what time and under what circumstances. To pretend that space is less than this “bodied” is deceptive, especially in consideration of the last ten years in the United States and the primacy that considerations of “health care reform” play in the economy and polity. On the other hand, space-based technologies are consistently engaged in acts of war and other measures that demand attention when considering interfacing with biological human beings, either in the development of the technologies or execution of operational commands.

 

At some point a honest conversation and unveiling needs to occur to reveal how much of what is labelled as “Artificial Intelligence” is actually expropriated personal private intangible or intellectual property that has been transferred via space and other mechanical technologies. The same western nations that champion a woman’s right to say “no” -- and want to criminalize other countries for not adhering to these and other standards regarding sexuality and affection -- also want to demand unbridled access to exploration of “celestial bodies.” This dissonance is already present and needs to be reconciled as soon as possible and especially in consideration of proper boundaries regarding the role that children and minors may play in current or future “emerging technologies.” As we do this we can address appropriately the improprieties of status quo arrangements, including the full spectrum of work by the innovators, when considering appropriate standards for comportment regarding “celestial bodies.”

 

This also includes how we maintain, manage and materially support components and systems of space exploration. Our perception on what is considered “foreign” or “alien” can not permit us to apply lesser standards when it comes to our perceptions of entitlements or rights to “claim” and “name” as has been in practice for much of history. Encounters with sentience are important, even if they manifest in manners that are not precisely quantifiable under pre-existing systems of classification or categorization. At the same time we have a duty to assure that we do not abnegate our duties to appropriately respond to those in need just so we can “capitalize” on a moment of “novel” yet contrived engagement between different levels and types of sentience and cognizability. This degrades our purpose and ultimately makes our technology unstable, unsuitable, and unsustainable. Boundaries are important, as is autonomy. Exploration is not diminished by high standards and respect for understanding and applying one’s own limits.

 

Enforcement regarding violations needs to be consistently applied with the aim of developing incentives to maintain high standards and high values. Appropriate punitive measures can transform paradigms of accepting graft rather than applying corrective measures. This means a discontinuation of policies of “flipping” penalties without addressing the underlying problematic behaviors, “waiving” off a penalty or obligation onto another, or relative deprivation due to inaccurate assessments and valuations for the purposes of sabotage aimed at dispossessing certain individuals or groups of individuals. Corrections entail conscience understanding of the problem behavior and a conscious commitment to prevent or refuse to re-engage it. This correction can be assessed an appreciative value and in being so applied can alleviate paradigms of mitigating risk perils with offsets of liability. The values of comparative downgrading based on analyses of unconventional or hitherto non-standardizable expressions then become themselves a liability as other valuations are sought and rewarded. It is these rewards we should seek and aspire after in further exploration.

​

Charity Colleen Crouse

12:57 pm CST

April 23, 2019

​

​

*     *     *     *      *     *     *

​

​

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

​

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

​

​

Reviewed 8:34 pm CST

Sept. 12, 2019

​