Java switch case bre的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列懶人包和總整理

以司法判例探討軟體智慧財產權保護之管理策略

為了解決Java switch case bre的問題，作者蘇立晟 這樣論述：

2020年起Covid-19疫情趨使全球產業加速數位化，扮演各種數位化核心工具之軟體程式功不可沒，此時對軟體業者而言，以何種智慧財產權保護其研發成果則顯得更加重要，惟近年來無論電腦軟體專利權或著作權保護之爭訟仍持續不斷，且法院亦不斷推翻過往判例之見解，權利人除應熟知成文法外，更應深入通盤瞭解與軟體相關法規動態及訴訟實務之演變，並結合實務經驗以找出最妥適保護軟體程式之權利範圍與界限，始能採取有效保護軟體程式之管理策略，降低法律風險並提升產品價值，以達投入有限資源，即能有效維護及最佳化管理軟體智慧財產權之成效。美國憲法明文規定，「國會有權為促進科學與實用技藝之進步，對創作人及發明人的著作及發明，

在一定期限內給予專屬權保護」，雖自美國最高法院於1879年做出Baker v. Selden判決以降，美國著作權法與專利法逐漸發展出各自專屬的保護範圍與界限，惟從近年美國司法判例(決)中研析可得知，無論是改變過往軟體專利適格性基準的Alice案，或是Oracle與Google兩造間纏訟十年的著作權爭議案，電腦軟體專利權與著作權保護範圍與界限不斷更動，時而擴張、時而緊縮，本文從兩種權利之本質與源起、法規構成要件與架構、權利保護主體、權利保護客體、權利保護之適格性、權利保護界線與範圍、權利濫用及權利發生等各種要件進行比較，試圖藉此找出難以掌握的法律保護範圍及輪廓。本文透過研析近年來重要及指標性判例

(決)後，並從中拆解出電腦軟體著作權及專利權各項要素並比較後，發現共通點為必須回歸到智慧財產權法律保護之權利本質與原點，探求法律保護之法理基礎，智慧財產權法著重衡平公眾利益及私權保護，隨時代演進科技日新月異，法院見解亦會隨之更動，本文認為應回歸法律保護本質，權利人應瞭解自身研發成果之屬性地位後，建構合身的技術、法律、管理黃金三角策略，並提出實質建議，以申請取得軟體專利權保護、以著作權保護、同時以專利權及著作權保護、以營業秘密保護等四大方向，再向下分別實施不同維護及管理策略，才能有效維護及最佳化管理軟體智慧財產權。

能力、 領導風格與資訊專案績效: 權變理論的觀點

為了解決Java switch case bre的問題，作者Kindarto Asdani 這樣論述：

The main endeavor of this paper was to explore and uncover the correlations between leader self-perceived competence and team competence in IT project. The aspiration was to approach contingency theory in FRL style which proposes three different leadership styles: transformational, transactional an

d laissez-faire (passive leader), then project success also to underline the significance of implementing the antecedent competencies in an IT project environment. We proposed a mediation and moderation model of competency as a predictor of the FRL style, then a mediation in which leadership style (

FRL) related to follower competencies and project success. The distinctive in this research, and become more interesting since we utilize data from three-level respondents of the municipal government IT department. We found that leader competence was related to the transformational leadership style

in a positive direction, as well as to employee competence and project success. And the moderating effect of team competence was expected positive, it means the higher level of team competence motivate leader to be more transformational style, then the transactional leadership style would be left. A

s predicted before, transactional leadership was low effective to project success, and laissez-faire (passive leader) ineffective to project success. We conclude that competence both leader and team could be effective as a direct and indirect predictor of FRL Styles and Project Success.