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
      • SCOPUSKCI등재
      • KCI등재
      • 선택적 취소 분기방식에 의한 ILP 프로세서의 분기손실 최소화

        이상정(Sang-Jeong Lee) 한국정보과학회 1998 정보과학회논문지 : 시스템 및 이론 Vol.25 No.7

        한 사이클에 다중명령(multiple instruction)이 이슈(issue)되어 명령어 수준에서 병렬처리(Instruction Level Parallelism, ILP)되는 고성능 ILP 프로세서에서는 파이프라인 해저드(pipeline hazard)가 발생하면 지속적인 파이프라인의 처리가 방해되어 처리 성능이 크게 저하된다. 특히 분기명령에 의해 야기되는 제어해저드(control hazard)로 발생하는 분기손실(branch penalty)은 프로세서의 성능을 저하시키는 주된 요인이 된다. 본 논문에서는 ILP 프로세서에서 분기손실을 최소화시키는 선택적 취소 분기(branch with selective squashing)방식을 제안한다. 제안된 방식은 다중 이슈되는 ILP 프로세서에서 지연슬롯에 스케쥴된 분기예측 경로의 명령을 분기의 결과에 따라 선택적으로 취소하여 분기손실을 줄인다. 컴파일러의 스케쥴과정에서 스케쥴하지 못하고 남은 분기 지연슬롯에 분기예측된 명령을 스케쥴하고 분기예측이 표시된 취소비트와 예측비트를 입력으로 받는 하나의 취소 디코더(squashing decoder)와 몇개의 분기취소 비트 큐(branch squashing bit queue)를 설계한다. 다양한 테스트 프로그램들에 대해 시뮬레이션하고 각 분기처리 방식과 성능을 비교하여 제안된 선택적 취소 방식의 타당성을 입증한다. Pipeline hazards, which break sustained pipeline flow, are the major impediment to improving performance in ILP processors which utilize instruction-level parallelism (ILP) by issuing multiple instructions. Especially, control hazards arising from branch instructions are major hurdle of enhancing the performance. In this paper, a branch scheme with selective squashing is proposed to reduce branch penalties. This scheme schedules the unsafe instructions from the branch predicted target path into the unfilled branch-delay slots which a compiler does not schedule safe instructions. In the case of branch misprediction, these unsafe instructions are squashed selectively. To make the unsafe instructions squashed selectively, a minimal hardware is added. It consists of a squashing decoder and branch squashing bit queues which take sqashing bits and a prediction bit from a branch Instruction. The performance is evaluated by simulating various test programs and their results are compared with those of other branch schemes. The experimental results show that the proposed scheme reduces branch penalties effectively.

      • 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.

      • 특허법 개정안에 대한 관견 -일본 특허법을 추종해서는 안 된다-

        이상정(Lee, Sang Jeong) 세창출판사 2015 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.79

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

        The Revised Bill of Patent Law §2 ⅲ (a) is as follows: (a) in the case of an invention of a thing (including a computer program, etc., the same shall apply hereinafter), producing, using, assigning, etc. (assigning and leasing and, in the case where the product is a computer program, etc., including providing through an electric telecommunication line, the same shall apply hereinafter), exporting or importing, or offering for assignment, etc. (including displaying for the purpose of assignment, etc., the same shall apply hereinafter) thereof. 4. A “computer program, etc.” in this Act means a computer program (a set of instructions given to an electronic computer which are combined in order to produce a specific result, hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) and any other information that is to be processed by an electronic computer equivalent to a computer program I do not agree on this revised bill. Because it is away from common sense: the program as such is not a thing. As the bill defined, a computer program is a set of instructions given to an electronic computer. The instructions are not things. And the greater parts of computer programs are not the highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilized. When patent act protect the program broadly, it is serious conflict with copyright law, which is the primary protection law of computer program. The bill is contrary to the global trends. Even in US, All computer programs are not protected by patent law. In the view of IP policy it is not recommendable.

      • 개정 부정경쟁방지법에 대한 일고

        이상정(Lee, Sang Jeong) 세창출판사 2013 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.73

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

        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.

      • 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.

      • SCOPUSKCI등재
      • 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.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료