RISS 학술연구정보서비스

다국어 입력

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.
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
        • 작성언어
        • 저자

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재
      • KCI등재

        지적재산법과 소비자 보호

        이상정 ( Lee Sang Jeong ) 한국소비자법학회 2016 소비자법연구 Vol.2 No.1

        본고는 지적재산법을 소비자보호적 관점에서 고찰한 것이다. 지적재산법 중 표지보호법인 상표법이나 부정경쟁방지법은 그 보호법익이 권리자나 사업자에 한하는 것은 아니며, 우리법이 미흡한 점은 있을지라도 소비자보호에도 일익을 담당하고 있다. 그런 의미에서 이들은 넓은 의미에서 소비자보호법의 영역에도 포함된다고 할 것이다. 반면 창작보호법인 특허법이나 저작권법은 소비자보호법이라고는 말할 수 없지만 정보사회에서 소비자에게 큰 영향을 미치며, 디지털시대로 되면 저작권제도는 소비자에게 직접 영향을 미치게 된다. 따라서 소비자교육에도 지적재산법에 대한 내용이 포함되어야 할 뿐만 아니라 소비자단체도 지적재산법의 입법이나 제도 운영에 관심을 가지고 소비자에게 피해를 끼치는 일이 없도록 입법의 제안이나 감시를 하여야 할 것이다. This paper studies on consumer related aspects of the Intellectual Property. Among intellectual property laws the trade mark law and unfair competition law, even though our law have some insufficiency to protect the consumer, are the consumer protection law in broad sense. On the contrary patent law and copyright law is not a consumer protection law. But consumer are a good deal influenced by the content and the enforcement of these laws. Especially copyright law directly influence the consumer in the era of digital and information society. So intellectual property law should be educated to the consumer and consumer organization keep watch on the intellectual property law not to impair the consumer interest. Moreover the consumer organization propose actively the enactment or revision of intellectual property law to protect the consumer.

      • KCI등재

        ADR을 통한 지적재산권분쟁 해결의 현황과 개선책

        이상정(Sang-Jeong Lee) 한국비교사법학회 2006 比較私法 Vol.13 No.1

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 9시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

          There are many Intellectual Property Dispute cases. Among them some cases are settled through ADR. In Korea there are three forms of ADR-negotiation, mediation, arbitration. Among ADR mediation is the most common form of dispute resolution and many committee are established since 1987-for example “The Copyright Commission for Deliberation and Conciliation”(CDCC),“Program Deliberation and M ediation Committee”(PDMC), etc..<BR>  But the results are not so successful. Maybe there are many reasons. One of them is the lack of mediator’s ability, enthusiasm. To fulfill these requirement the system must be revised. From government-initiative ADR to private-initiative ADR. From monopoly to competition. In normative view the varieties of effectiveness are also problem. One is the same as that of judgement, the other is that of compromise contract. It needs uniformity.<BR>  So I recommend we make the general rule applied to the ADR. Japanese act for promoting the ADR is a good example.

      • KCI등재

        제조물책임법과 개발위험의 항변

        이상정(Lee Sang Jeong) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2007 성균관법학 Vol.19 No.2

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 9시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

          More than 5 years have passed since our Product Liability Act was enforced. The enactment of Product Liability Act means that the liability system based on the negligence shift to the liability system based on the defect. So many consumer supposed that there was the drastic change in the area of PL. But in reality there is little change. It"s because design defects and warning defects are primarily based on the negligence of producer. And even in the area of manufacturing defects there is little change. Before the enforcement of new act the producer was apt to be liable to the defects he made regardless of his fault or negligence. And Presumption of negligence was applied in many cases.<BR>  One of the consumer"s disappointments is the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense(the state-of-the-art defense). It"s prescribed in the § 4① ⅱ of our act. That is as follows:<BR>  Article 4 (Exemptions) ① In cases where Article 3 applies. the manufacturer. etc. shall not be liable as a result of Article 3 if he proves;<BR>  (1.)<BR>  2. that the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer, etc. delivered the product was not such as to enable the existence of the defect in the product to be discovered:<BR>  But I think that the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense is not adequate even though many industrial nations accept the state-of-the-art defense.<BR>  First of all It"s nearly impossible to find out "the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer. etc. delivered the product". Because Scientific knowability refers not to what in fact was known at the time. but to what could have been known at the time.<BR>  And the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense means that the human is the means of the development of science or technology. So "Development Risk" defense in our act must be deleted. But for the compromise of innovation and safety. this paper proposed. the compensation may be reduced when the producer observed carefully. warned the hazards and recalled them after delivering the products.<BR>  This paper ends with the phrases which were appeared in the "Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp" judgement :<BR>  The concept of knowability is complicated further by the fact---that the level of investment in safety research by manufacturers is one determinant of the state-of-the-art at any given time.<BR>  By imposing on manufacturers the costs of failure to discover hazards, we create an incentive for them to invest more actively in safety research.

      • KCI등재
      • 디자인보호법의 발전방향에 관한 소고

        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.

      • KCI등재

        글자체디자인권의 침해에 관한 소고

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

        '스콜라' 이용 시 소속기관이 구독 중이 아닌 경우, 오후 4시부터 익일 오전 9시까지 원문보기가 가능합니다.

        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].

      • 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.

      • 컴퓨터시스템 : ILP 프로세서를 위한 성능측정 및 평가 시스템

        이상정(Lee Sang Jeong) 한국정보처리학회 1998 정보처리학회논문지 Vol.5 No.8

        본 논문에서는 한 사이클에 여러 개의 명령들이 다중 이슈되어 명령어 수준에서 병렬처리되는 ILP 프로세서의 성능을 측정하고 평가하는 시스템을 개발한다. 개발되는 시스템은 C 컴파일러와 시뮬레이터로 구성된다. C 컴파일러는 C 소스 프로그램을 입력으로 받아 3-주소 코드형태의 중간언어를 생성한다. 생성된 중간언어는 ILP 프로세서의 환경 파라미터와 함께 시뮬레이터에 입력되어 시뮬레이션된 후 메모리 내용, 수행된 클럭 수 및 명령 트레이스, 수행된 명령들의 동적 빈도수, 분기명령의 예측률, profiling 정보 등을 생성한다. 개발된 성능측정 시스템의 동작 검증을 위하여 순차이슈 되어 정적으로 스케쥴링 되는 조건실행 방식의 성능과 분기처리 방식의 성능을 측정하여 분석한다. In this paper, a performance measurement and evaluation system for ILP(Instruction Level Parallelism) processors which issue multiple instructions and execute them in parallel is developed. The system consists of a C compiler and a simulator. The compiler takes C source programs as an input and generates 3-address style intermediate code. Then the simulator accepts the intermediate code and simulates it. The results of simulation are the contents of memory before and after simulation, the number of executed clocks, the trace and the dynamic count of executed instructions, the prediction hit ratio and profiling information for each branch instruction. To verify and understand the behavior of the system, the performance of predicated execution and one of branch schemes is measured and its results are analyzed.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료