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.

상환 불가능에 대한 해결책, 이행지급보증보험에 대하여

이상정,Lee, Sang-Jeong 에너지절약전문기업협회 2009 esco Vol.59 No.-

시간지연 시스템의 루우프 전달 복구 특성

이상정(Sang Jeong Lee),홍석민(Seok-Min Hong),박상현(Sang Hyun Park) 제어로봇시스템학회 1994 제어로봇시스템학회 국내학술대회 논문집 Vol.1 No.1

저작권집중관리에 대한 규제의 기본방향

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.

퍼블리시티권에 관한 소고

이상정 ( Sang Jeong Lee ) 아세아여성법학연구소 2001 아세아여성법학 Vol.4 No.-

The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual`s name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one`s persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion. In the United States, the Right of Publicity is first recognized in Haelan Case and now largely protected by state common or statutory law. In Korea the Right of Publicity is recognized and mainly protected through the law of tort competition law and Copyright law may apply to the infringement of the Right Publicity. This Paper compose of 5 chapter : 1) Introduction, 2) The Right, 3) The subject and object of the right, 4) Remedies, 5) Conclusion. This paper contains; (1) whether the Right of Publicity is assignable and descendible(inheritable). (2) who has the Right of Publicity: Does only famous person have the Right of Publicity? (3) the scope of the Right of Publicity; Is {Lim, Ggug-Jeong court of Korea} and {Vanna Wbite court of US} right? (4) whether Injunctive Relief is available in Korea Legal System. As to topic (1) I think it`s not assignable but descendible. So general succession is admitted, but singular succession is not permitted. As to topic (2) I think that every (natural and legal) person who has the power to attract the public has the Right of Publicity. As to topic (3) I do not agree with 2 decisions. Both of them go too far. As to topic (4) I think that injunctive relief is available in Korea. As conclusion I suggest it`s more preferable to legislate on the Right of Publicity.

값 예측 오류를 위한 순차적이고 선택적인 복구 방식

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.

이른바 '히딩크 넥타이'의 도안의 저작물성

이상정(Sang-jeong Lee) 세창출판사 2006 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.42

Our supreme court declared that the design of so-called "Hiddink Necktie" is copyrightable. It contrast with the decision of "Daihan Textile" case. In that case the supreme court declared that 'Le Desire' and 'Le Basket'(the flower design which were registered in US Copyright Office) was not copyrightable in our copyright system. The reason is that those designs contain no artistic value or feature. But it is groundless. Anyway there- after the court denied the copyrightability of the industrial design in many cases even though the copyright act protect the applied art without limitation. In 2000 we revised the artistic works clause of copyright act(§4①ⅳ) like the US copyright act. That is the adoption of 'separability' test. In a sense the revised clause narrowed the scope of copyrightability of the applied art. But we regard it as granted that two-dimensional design is protectable under that clause. The Hiddink-Necktie court affirmed that the pattern of necktie design is copyrightable. From now on we suppose that two-dimensional design is apt to be protected by copyright law.

글자체디자인권의 침해에 관한 소고

이상정(Lee, Sang Jeong) 경희법학연구소 2005 경희법학 Vol.39 No.3

For the protection of typeface design we ve already amended the Design Protection Act(hereafter DPA ). So the typeface design is to be protected by DPA from the July 1st of 2005. From that day on it s infringement to use the registered design without permission of right holder. When we think of the protection of typeface design, we must solve two problems. One is the scope of protection and another is what acts are constituted the infringement. For the purpose of the adequate protection this paper propose that the objective scope must be narrowly construed. That means we regard two designs as similar design only when two typeface designs are nearly same. And the act to display and possession for transfer and rental must be included among the acts of doing business, and the acts of transfer, rental, display for transfer and rental in the internet are also regarded as the acts of doing business. Reversely using typeface design in the course of research and education must be exempted from infringement. So the phrase of [using design in the course of research and experiment] in the ｢article 44 paragraph 1｣ must be changed as [using design in the course of research and education].

미술품 창작과 예술의 자유에 관한 일고

이상정(Lee, Sang Jeong) 세창출판사 2009 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.55

The atmosphere in which an artist creates should, ideally, be free of external constraints. So the Article 22 of the Korean Constitution prescribes "all citizens enjoy the freedom of learning and the arts". But there are a lot of censorship of the arts. A fundamental conflict arises between the government's legitimate interest in regulating political subversion and obscenity and the guarantee of freedom of arts. In Korea obscenity, McCarthyism(the violation of the National Security Law), flag desecration, defamation are good example. This paper study afore-mentioned area. In obscenity area, there are many cases. This paper contains the definition, the present rule, historical case -that is 'La maja desnuda' [known in English as The Naked (or Nude) Maja]. In the National Security Law area, this paper contains two cases- those are the 'National Liberation Movement' case and the 'Riceplanting' case. In the flag desecration area there are some cases in Korean society. But in the art creation part there is no case which is disputed in the court. So this paper introduce some American cases. In the area of defamation, this paper introduce the Silberman v. Georges case. As a conclusion this paper urges the freedom of art should be guaranteed. All censorship of arts must be abolished. Of course under the mask of arts, there may be some cases which are non-arts. But in the marginal case, the 'in dubio pro arte' principle must be abided by. When holding the Flag Protection Act of 1989 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court conclude that "punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." That's the conclusion.

우리 저작권법사의 전시권의 문제점

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.