Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This study investigates the effect of touchpad size, position filter, and control display gain on user performance. Observations include the behavior of user while using the touchpad to acquire color-changing targets. This study examines the effect of two touchpad sizes, which consist of large (100×60 mm) and small (65×36 mm) sizes, position filters (30, 50), and control-display gains (0.5, 1, 2) on acquiring targets that appeared in eight positions (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°), at three distances (100, 300, 500 pixel) and 3 different levels of target size (10, 40, 70 pixel). As for the results, touchpad size significantly affects movement time, error count, movement count, and re-entry count. Position filter also significantly affects the re-entry count. The different behavior of touchpad user differs significantly regarding to performance measurements. Filter 50 and Gain 2 for primary movement and Filter 30 and Gain 0.5 for secondary movement are the best combinations for participants to achieve optimum performance. Based on Fitts’ Law, the proposed model successfully predicts movement time by adding the effect of CD gain in formulating the task’s difficulty index (R² = 0.8147). The results in this study will be useful for microelectronic companies to increase touchpad performance and to offer suggestions for designing touchpads based on optimal settings. Furthermore, this study also reveals that each type of touchpad features different settings to achieve optimum performance."

"The performance and usability of the input device play an important role in providing better experience for the user. The touchpad is commonly known as a pointing device and is a predominant pointing technology for notebook computers. However, comparative evaluations have established that touchpad performance is poor in comparison with a mouse. The best setting of touchpad is also remaining unknown. Furthermore, there is no research that study about the velocity pattern in touchpad. To solve this drawback, this research attempts to implement Fitts' Law method, merely focused on touchpad. In the design of experiment, touchpad size and position filter are added as new independent variables, along with Control Display Gain, Distance, Width, and Angle, as the wellknown variables in Fitts' Law researches. Two sizes of touchpad are prepared which consist of large (100*60) and small (65*36) sizes. In addition, position filter is set at 2 different levels: 30 and 50, moreover gain setting is set at 3 different levels of fixed gain: 0.5, 1, and 2. For the Fitts' Law Program, 3 different levels of distance (100, 300, and 500 pixel), 3 different levels of target width (10, 40, and 70 pixel), and 8 directions (0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, and 315) are applied. Moreover, the dependent variables that are being studied are movement time, error count, movement count, target re-entry count, and peak velocity. In this experiment, 20 participants are recruited and ANOVA Split Plot is used as the method. In total, each participant performed 2592 trial movements (2 touchpad size × 3 position filter × 3 control display gain x 3 distance × 3 target size × 8 moving direction × 3 repetitions). As for the results, touchpad size significantly affects movement time, error count, movement count, and re-entry count. Position filter also significantly affects the re-entry count. The best setting acquired from result shows that filter 50 and gain 2 are better implemented for primary movement, and filter 30 and gain 0.5 are better applied in secondary movement. The result also shows that there is difference in angle for touchpad performance and mouse. The different behavior for touchpad user also differs in touchpad performance indicator. Moreover, clutching behavior on touchpad user makes touchpad velocity graph to be modeled into several primary movement. Furthermore, strong interaction between distance and gain influences Fitts' Law equation to be modified."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini menyoroti permasalahan mengenai implikasi yuridis terhadap akuisisi perseroan terbatas tertutup yang tidak mengumumkan rencana akuisisi dan hasil akuisisi dalam minimal satu surat kabar harian nasional. Mengumumkan rencana akuisisi merupakan kewajiban sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbats, namun terdapat perseroan yang meniadakan kewajiban ini karena undang-undang diam terhadap sanksinya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah preskriptif yuridis analitis yaitu mengacu pada peraturan perundang-undangan. Hasil yang ditemukan dalam penelitian yaitu perseroan terbatas yang tidak mengumumkan rencana akuisisi harus melakukan ratifikasi hasil akuisisi dengan mengumumkannya di surat kabar harian nasional walaupun akuisisi telah terjadi.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis highlighted an issue regarding legal implications of acquisition of an unlisted limited liability company, which did not publish its acquisition plan and the result of its acquisition in at least one daily national newspaper. Publishing those matters are the company obligations as stipulated in Law Number 40 year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company, yet there are companies which negate this obligation because the law silence to its sanction. The method used in this thesis is legal prescriptive analytics, which based on relevance regulations. This thesis results is the company, which did not publish its acquisition plan, shall rectifying its acquisition result in at least one daily national newspaper although the acquisition had occurred., This thesis highlighted an issue regarding legal implications of acquisition of anunlisted limited liability company, which did not publish its acquisition plan andthe result of its acquisition in at least one daily national newspaper. Publishingthose matters are the company obligations as stipulated in Law Number 40 year2007 regarding Limited Liability Company, yet there are companies which negatethis obligation because the law silence to its sanction. The method used in thisthesis is legal prescriptive analytics, which based on relevance regulations. Thisthesis results is the company, which did not publish its acquisition plan, shallrectifying its acquisition result in at least one daily national newspaper althoughthe acquisition had occurred.]"

"KPPU berwenang menjatuhkan denda administratif sebesar Rp 1.000.000.000 untuk setiap hari keterlambatan pemberitahuan dengan denda paling tinggi sebesar Rp 25.000.000.000. Penulisan skripsi ini membahas mengenai apakah implementasi pengaturan denda administratif sudah memenuhi keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi pelaku usaha. Besaran denda dirasakan tidak wajar jika hanya melihat masalah keterlambatan sehingga pengaturan denda tidak memenuhi keadilan dan kepastian hukum bagi pelaku usaha. Dalam hal pelaku usaha terlambat melakukan pemberitahuan bukan berarti tindakan penggabungan, peleburan, atau pengambilalihan yang dilakukan dapat menyebabkan praktik monopoli atau persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Keterlambatan pemberitahuan dapat terjadi dikarenakan perbedaan pemahaman antara Komisi dengan pelaku usaha.

---

The Commission authorized to impose administrative fines amounting Rp 1.000.000.000 for every day delay with the highest fines amounting Rp 25.000.000.000. Of writing this minithesis concerning on whether the implementation of administrative fines regulation already meet justice and legal certainty for businessmen. The amount of fines perceived unnatural if only look at delays problem so that the regulation of administrative fines does not meet the justice and legal certainty for businessmen. In terms of businessmen failure to fill the notification does not mean that the act of merger, consolidation, or acquisition was being done may result a monopolistic practice and unfair business competition. The failure to fill notification can occur due to the difference understanding between KPPU and businessmen"

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai kewajiban pelaku usaha pada PT. Nippon Indosari Corpindo, Tbk. untuk menyampaikan pemberitahuan pengambilalihan saham PT. Prima Top Boga kepada Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha dan bagaimana penerapan sanksi yang diberikan kepada PT. Nippon Indosari Corpindo, Tbk. akibat dari keterlambatan pemberitahuan pengambilalihan saham. Bahwa dengan adanya ketentuan yang berlaku atas kewajiban pelaku usaha untuk melakukan pembeitahuan dengan syarat-syarat tertentu dilakukan adalah agar Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha sebagai regulator dapat mengawasi atau memantau atas segala tindakan pelaku usaha yang dimungkinkan terjadinya praktek monopoli dari tindakan hukum pengambilalihan saham perusahaan. Berdasarkan pada hasil penelitian yang dilakukan ini diketahui bahwa penerapan sanksi akibat keterlambatan pemberitahuan pengambialihan tersebut sudah sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Demikian dengan adanya kasus yang terjadi ini maka dapat menjadikan salah satu contoh bagi pelaku usaha lain yang juga ingin melakukan pengambilalihan perusahaan lain untuk memperhatikan ketentuan-ketentuan yang berlaku agar tidak terjerat dengan kasus yang sama.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the obligations of business actor at PT. Nippon Indosari Corpindo, Tbk. to convey a notification of aquisition of shares of PT. Prima Top Boga to The Business Competition Supervisory Commission and how the application of sanctions given to PT. Nippon Indosari Corpindo, Tbk. as a consequent of overdue notification in the acquisition of shares. Whereas with the provisions that apply to the obligations of business actors to make notification with certain conditions carried out so The Business Competition Supervisory Commission as a regulator, it can supervise or monitor all actions of business actors which may result in monopolistic practices from legal actions aquisition of company shares. Based on the results of the research conducted, it is known that the application of sanctions due to the overdue notification is already in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. Thus with the existence of this case, it can make one example for other business actors who also want to Aquisition of other companies to pay attention to the applicable provisions so that they are not entangled in the same case."

"ABSTRAKKPPU telah menjatuhkan sanksi yang bersifat ekstrateritorial yakni kepada pelaku usaha dan perbuatan di luar wilayah Indonesia, yaitu Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc. Sebagai bagian dari penelitian yuridis normatif, artikel ini membahas mengenai keabsahan penerapan prinsip ekstrateritorial persaingan usaha di Indonesia serta kesesuaian substansi pokok perkara atas Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc dengan peraturan persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Disimpulkan bahwa prinsip ekstrateritorial persaingan usaha tidak dapat diterapkan di Indonesia karena definisi Pelaku Usaha dalam UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tidak dapat menjangkau aktor dan perbuatan yang dilakukan di luar wilayah Indonesia sekalipun menimbulkan dampak persaingan usaha tidak sehat di Indonesia. Sedangkan dari sisi substansi pokok perkara Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc dapat dijerat oleh peraturan persaingan usaha Indonesia, namun karena KPPU tidak memiliki kewenangan ekstrateritorial, dalam kasus ini eksekusi putusan akan menjadi masalah dikarenakan yang menjadi terlapor hanya Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc yang berkedudukan di Korea. Seharusnya, KPPU menjadikan grup Toray di Indonesia (PT Toray Polytech Jakarta) juga sebagai Terlapor.

---

ABSTRACTKPPU has imposed extraterritorial sanctions on business actor outside the territory of Indonesia, namely Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc. As part of normative juridical research, this article discusses the validity of extraterritorial principles application in business competition in Indonesia and the suitability of the substance of the case for Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc related to regulations on business competition in Indonesia. It was concluded that the principle of extraterritorial business competition cannot be applied in Indonesia because the definition of Business Actors in Law Number 5 Year 1999 cannot reach actors and acts committed outside the territory of Indonesia even though it causes impact of unfair business competition in Indonesia. Meanwhile, in terms of the main substance of the case, Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc can be charged with Indonesian business competition regulations, but because KPPU does not have extraterritorial authority, the execution in this case will be a problem because the reported party is only Toray Advance Materials Korea Inc which domiciled in Korea. KPPU should include the Toray group in Indonesia (PT Toray Polytech Jakarta) also the reported party."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai 3 hal, yakni mengenai pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan dalam rangka pengambilalihan saham perusahaan,penerapan hukum persaingan usaha dalam Putusan KPPU nomor 08/KPPUM/2012 mengenai dugaan keterlambatan melakukan Pemberitahuan oleh PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera, dan perbandingan pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan dalam rangka pengambilalihan saham perusahaan di beberapa negara dengan pengaturan di Indonesia. Pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan perlu dimengerti dan dipahami baik oleh pelaku usaha maupun Investigator KPPU. Dengan demikian, pelaku usaha terhindar dari pelanggaran pengaturan yang ada dan KPPU dapat melaksanakan fungsi pengawasan terhadap pengambilalihan saham dengan maksimal, sehingga pelanggaran terhadap hukum persaingan usaha pun dapat dihindari. KPPU telah menerapkan pengaturan pengambilalihan saham dalam memutuskan kasus dugaan keterlambatan melakukan Pemberitahuan pengambilalihan saham oleh PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera. Jika pengaturan mengenai Konsultasi dan Pemberitahuan di Indonesia dibandingkan dengan pengaturan di berbagai negara yaitu Australia, Brazil, dan Jepang, terdapat beberapa persamaan dan perbedaan.

---

This thesis is mainly discuss about 3 (three) problems. First, regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Antitrust Law, the implementation of Antitrust Law in KPPU?s decision No. 08/KPPU-M/2012 about failure to notify acquisition case by PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera, and comparison between regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Indonesian Antitrust Law and regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on other country?s Antitrust Law. Regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition shall be understood by companies and KPPU?s Investigator. Therefore, companies can avoid violation of the regulation and KPPU can perform its best control function, so that in the end violation of Antitrust Law can be avoided. KPPU has implemented the regulation of acquisition in failure to notify acquisition case by PT Bumi Kencana Eka Sejahtera in a right way. In a comparison between regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on Indonesian Antitrust Law and regulation of Consultation and Notification about acquisition based on other country?s Antitrust Law, there are some similarities and differences."

"Salah satu bentuk kegiatan ekonomi yang dilakukan oleh pelaku usaha adalah pengambilalihan. Pengambilalihan merupakan cara mengembangkan perseroan yang sudah ada atau menyelamatkan perseroan yang sedang mengalami kekurangan atau kesulitan modal. Tindakan pengambilalihan, disadari atau tidak, akan mempengaruhi persaingan antar para pelaku usaha di dalam pasar bersangkutan dan membawa dampak kepada konsumen dan masyarakat. Pengambilalihan dapat mengakibatkan meningkatnya atau berkurangnya persaingan yang berpotensi merugikan konsumen dan masyarakat. Pengambilalihan yang berakibat nilai aset dan/atau nilai penjualannya melebihi jumlah tertentu wajib diberitahukan kepada Komisi, selambat-lambatnya 30 (tiga puluh) hari sejak tanggal penggabungan, peleburan atau pengambilalihan. Ketentuan tentang nilai aset dan/atau nilai penjualan serta tata cara pemberitahuan dimaksud telah diatur melalui Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 57 Tahun 2010 tentang Penggabungan atau Peleburan Badan Usaha dan Pengambilalihan Saham Perusahaan yang Dapat Mengakibatkan Terjadinya Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (PP No. 57/2010) sebagai pelaksanaan amanat Pasal 28 dan 29 Undang Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat (UU No. 5/1999). Berdasarkan bentuknya, tipologi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian deskriptif. Metode deskriptif ini dimaksudkan untuk memperoleh gambaran yang baik, jelas dan memberikan data selengkap mungkin tentang objek yang sedang diteliti, karena secara spesifik penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan gambaran mengenai pengambilalihan saham dalam perspektif hukum persaingan usaha serta pengaturannya dalam Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.

---

Acquisition is one of the economic activities conducted by business actors. In addition, acquisition is a way to expand the existing company or retrieve the company that suffer a setback. Acquisition, whether realized or not, will affect the competition between the business actors in the relevant market and affect to the consumer. Acquisition may cause the increasing or decreasing the competition that potentially injure the consumer. Acquisition that cause the asset value and/or the selling value exceed the certain amount, shall be notified to the Commission, at the latest 30 (thirty) days since the date of merger, consolidation or acquisition. The provision on the asset value and/or the selling value as well as the procedure of such notification through Government Regulation Number 57 of 2010 on Merger or Consolidation of Business Entities and Acquisition of Company Shares that Could Result in Monopolistic Practices and/or Unfair Business Competition (Government Regulation Number 57 of 2010) as subordinate legislation of Article 28 and Article 29 Law Number 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition (Law Number 5 of 1999). Pursuant to its form, the typology used in this research is descriptive. This descriptive method is intended to acquire clear description and provide complete data on the researched object, because the purpose of this research to provide description on shares acquisition in the perspective of competition law and its regulation in Law Number 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition."