http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 이상정(Lee Sang-Jeong) (검색결과 331 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
A Compatible Variables Scheduling Algorithm for Register Allocation in Microprogram
이상정,임인칠,Lee, Sang-Jeong,Lim, In-Chil The Institute of Electronics and Information Engin 1987 전자공학회논문지 Vol.24 No.2
This paper proposes a compatible variables scheduling algorithm, which is the process to pack variables into same register without modifying program semantics, for efficient register allocation of microprogram. The algorithm constructs T-V matrix, obtains incompatible variable set and scheduling priority, and schedules compatible groups. By this algorithm, the number of compatible groups can be minimized. The algorithm was implemented with C language on VAX-11/780 computer. By applying the algorithm to practical microprograms, the effectiveness of the algorithm is verified.
-
-
이상정(Lee, Sang Jeong) 세창출판사 2013 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.73
The Purpose of THE UNFAIR COMPETITION PREVENTION AND TRADE SECRET PROTECTION ACT('UCPA') is to maintain the order of fair trade by preventing the unfair competitive acts, such as unjustifiable use of other person's well-known trade marks and trade names in Korea and by preventing the infringements of other person's trade secrets. The 'UCPA' was amended recently by adding the provisions of supplementary general provision, the proof system of trade secret existence, the adjustment of penalty against the trade secrets infringement, the reporting awards system, etc. The highlight of this amendment is the adoption of the supplementary general provision against the misappropriation of the results of other's efforts. So the person whose business interests is injured or threatened by such acts may seek the court injunction and preventive order against that person, and also get the damage compensation. But in that case there is no criminal sanction. Only civil relief is permitted.
-
이상정(Sang-Jeong Lee),전병찬(Byung-Chan Jeon) 한국정보과학회 2004 정보과학회논문지 : 시스템 및 이론 Vol.31 No.1·2
고성능 슈퍼스칼라 프로세서에서 값 예측(value prediction) 방식은 명령의 결과 값을 미리 예측하고, 이 후 데이타 종속 관계가 있는 명령들에게 값을 조기에 공급함으로써 이들 명령들을 모험적으로 실행하여 성능을 향상시키는 방식이다. 값 예측으로 성능을 향상시키기 위해서는 예측 실패 시에 효율적으로 복구하는 과정이 필수적이다. 본 논문에서는 값 예측 실패 시에 잘못 예측된 값을 사용하여 모험적으로 수행된 명령들만을 순차적으로 취소하고 복구한 후에 재이슈하는 값 예측 실패 복구 메커니즘(value misprediction recovery mechanism)을 제안한다. 제안된 복구 방식은 한번에 모든 종속명령들을 검색하지 않음으로써 파이프라인을 정지시키지 않는다. 즉, 파이프라인이 진행되는 순서에 따라 순차적으로 값 예측이 틀린 종속명령만을 선택적으로 취소하고 재이슈하여 불필요한 취소와 재이슈를 줄임으로써 값 예측 실패 시에 손실을 줄인다. Value prediction is a technique to obtain performance gains by supplying earlier source values of its data dependent instructions using predicted value of a instruction. To fully exploit the potential of value speculation, however, the efficient recovery mechanism is necessary in case of value misprediction. In this paper, we propose a sequential and selective recovery mechanism for value misprediction. It searches data dependency chain of the mispredicted instruction sequentially without pipeline stalls and adverse impact on clock cycle time. In our scheme, only the dependent instructions on the predicted instruction is selectively squashed and reissued in case of value misprediction.
-
이상정(Sang-Jeong Lee) 세창출판사 2008 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.52
Collective management is the exercise of copyright and neighbouring rights by organizations acting in the interest and on behalf of the owners of rights. The Korean Copyright Act contains provisions concerning the collective management of copyright and neighbouring rights in the "Chapter 7 Copyright Management Services." The relevant legal provisions divide such services into two categories, namely "copyright trust services" and "copyrights agent or brokerage services". This distinction has important repercussions: Any person who intends to engage in a business as a trustee on behalf of the owner of the rights shall obtain a permit from the Minister of Culture, Sports and tourism. But Those who intend to engage in copyright management services only as an agent or brokerage shall report to the Minister as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. But I think this distinction is not adequate. I think we have a reason to regulate the service because it's a collective management service, not because it's a trust service. There is no need to regulate the service according to the nature of contract between the right holder and the service entity. For the purpose of regulation it's a wrong direction to divide such copyright management services into two categories-"copyright trust services" and "copyrights agent or brokerage services". We need to abolish this distinction. In case of copyright collective management, I think, government approval is needed. So the government approval itself for the collective management service need not to be changed or abolished. But the provision that any person who has operated copyright management services without obtaining a permit shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year or a fine of not more than ten million won(See §137 ⅳ) shall be abolished. Rather we shall provide as the German Law on Collective Rights Management: Anyone who engages in collective rights management, without having prior authorization to do so, is not entitled to claim any of the rights under the Copyright Act, even if rightsholders have entrusted him with rights management.
-
-
-
이상정 ( Lee Sang Jeong ) 한국지식재산연구원 2005 지식재산논단 Vol.2 No.2
This is the study about how to revise our current design act. Our current design act consists of the substantial examination system(SES) and non-substantial examination system(NSES). From 1998 we have a dual system. We introduced the NSES for the short-term life cycled products. The rights conferred through SES and NSES are same: monopolistic right. So many designs without qualification have exclusive rights. Those are hindering the development of design industry. It must be changed. This paper propose the abolishment of dual system. But it does not mean to turn back to the pre-1998 system. It is out of date and inefficient for all designs to be examined substantially to be registered. Even though all designs should be registered to gain the design right, it need not be examined whether it fulfills the substantial requirement. If only formal and procedural requirements are fulfilled, it could be registered. But before the right-h이der enforce the right it must be undergone substantial examination. So substantial examination is pre-requite for the enforcement. It must be based on the request of right holder. The time of the request for the examination must be limited like patent law. The nature of right from registration is monopolistic and the right has a block effect. This paper opposed the two-tier system: opposition to the adoption of unregistered design right system(UDRS). The major problem is the uncertainty. As [Australian Law Reform Report] says a manufacturer may be uncertain whether his or her product is so similar that it will be taken to be a copy. And in a sense we have already UDRS. It is in the Unfair Competition Law and Copyright Law. Not common-place design is protected from so-called dead copy by Unfair Competition Law, and copyright law protect some designs from copying. So there is no need to introduce the UDRS into the Design Protection Act itself.
-
-
이상정(Lee Sang Jeong) 경희대학교 경희법학연구소 2006 경희법학 Vol.41 No.2
Our copyright law confers the author the Right of Exhibition The author shall have the right to exhibit the original or reproduction of work of art, etc ( work of art, etc. includes the work of art, the work of photographs and architectural works). And to harmonize the interest of the ownership of copyright and the ownership of material object, the copyright act prescribes that The owner of the original of a work of art, etc. or a person who has obtained the owner s authorization, may exhibit the works in its original form . The problem arises in the case of the copy owner of art, etc (Article 32). The problem arises in the case of the exhibition of the copy of a a work of art, etc.. And it was realized in the case of 「Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003 Na 51230 Delivered on November 11, 2004」. The court ruled that he who exhibited the copy of the photo which was in the calendar, infringed the copyright. I think it s non-sense. In Japan the author of an artistie work or of an unpublished photographic work shall have the exclusive right to exhibit publicly the original of his work. So the copyright owner of published photographic work has no right of Right of Exhibition. In USA the copyright owner of published photographic work has the exclusive right to displayed the copyrighted work publicly (ξ 106(5)). But the copyright act of USA has the limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord. The ξ 109 (c) prescribes as follows: (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a narticular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located, It is one of the first sale doctrine. So I propose that the article 32 should be revised as follows: The owner of the original or reproduction of a work of art, etc, or a persion who has obtained the owner s authorization, may exhibit the works in its original or reproduction form.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
