Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKDiseluruh negara di dunia yang telah memiliki Hukum Persaingan Usaha, praktekpersekongkolan merupakan pelanggaran yang sangat sulit untuk dibuktikan. Halini dikarenakan dalam penanganan kasus-kasus persekongkolan pada umumnyapara penegak Hukum Persaingan Usaha kesulitan untuk menemukan bukti-buktilangsung (direct evidence), mengingat pada umumnya perjanjian untukbersekongkol tidak berupa perjanjian tertulis. Menyikapi permasalahan ini,muncul praktek-praktek pembuktian persekongkolan tender dengan indirectevidence oleh berbagai penegak Hukum Persaingan Usaha di negara-negara dunia.Pada prakteknya di Indonesia, Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU)bergantung kepada adanya indikasi komunikasi antar pelaku tender untukmenyimpulkan adanya persekongkolan tender. Umumnya persekongkolan tenderyang terjadi berupa price fixing oleh para peserta tender. Doktrin consciousparallelism yang sering digunakan untuk membuktikan keberadaan price fixingoleh kartel, berkembang dan melahirkan plus factors yang menjadi acuan bagiPengadilan Amerika Serikat untuk membuktikan adanya conspiracy yang timbuldari praktek kartel. Plus factors pada umumnya berbentuk indirect evidence ataucircumstantial evidence, dan berdasarkan Peraturan KPPU, indirect evidencetermasuk dalam alat bukti petunjuk. Namun disayangkan peraturan KPPU tidakmenjelaskan lebih lanjut ruang lingkup dan nilai pemnbuktian dari alat buktipetunjuk yang dimaksud, hanya disebutkan bahwa petunjuk merupakanpengetahuan Majelis Komisi yang olehnya diketahui dan diyakini kebenarannya.

---

Abstract Throughout the country in the world who have Competition Law, conspiracy is aviolation which is is very difficult to prove. This is because the handling of casesof conspiracy in general Competition Law enforcement agencies struggle to finddirect evidence (direct evidence), given in general agreement to conspire not be awritten agreement. Addressing these issues, emerging practices of evidence ofconspiracy tender with indirect evidence by various law enforcement Competitionin the countries of the world. In practice in Indonesia, the CompetitionSupervisory Commission (KPPU) heavily rely to the indication of communicationbetween tender participants to conclude the tender conspiracy. Generally tenderconspiracy that occurred in the form of price fixing by the bidders. The doctrine ofconscious parallelism is often used to prove the existence of price fixing bycartels, developing and delivery factors plus the reference to the Court of theUnited States to prove the existence of conspiracy arising from the practice of thecartel. Plus form factors are generally indirect evidence or circumstantialevidence, and based on the Commission's Rules, indirect evidence including theevidence guide. Unfortunately the Commission rules do not explain further thescope and value of the evidence pemnbuktian clue is, simply stated that the guideis the knowledge by which the Commission is known and believed the truth."

"This best-selling guide to CUDA and GPU parallel programming has been revised with more parallel programming examples, commonly-used libraries, and explanations of the latest tools. With these improvements, the book retains its concise, intuitive, practical approach based on years of road-testing in the authors' own parallel computing courses. "Programming Massively Parallel Processors: A Hands-on Approach" shows both student and professional alike the basic concepts of parallel programming and GPU architecture. Various techniques for constructing parallel programs are explored in detail. Case studies demonstrate the development process, which begins with computational thinking and ends with effective and efficient parallel programs. Updates in this edition include: new coverage of CUDA 4.0, improved performance, enhanced development tools, increased hardware support, and more; increased coverage of related technology OpenCL and new material on algorithm patterns, GPU clusters, host programming, and data parallelism; and two new case studies explore the latest applications of CUDA and GPUs for scientific research and high-performance computing."

"Education field is one of area have to be paid attention from plagiarism activity. The students are common part related to this criminal activity. They usually get involved in copying the programming assignments, for example source code duplication...."

"Salah satu pengaturan di dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia adalah mengenai perjanjian yang dilarang, dimana pelaku usaha dilarang untuk melakukan perjanjian atau kesepakatan dengan pelaku usaha lain karena dapat menimbulkan distorsi terhadap persaingan di pasar. Dalam praktiknya, karena semakin sulitnya membuktikan adanya perjanjian tertulis, berkembang sebuah bukti tidak langsung atau bukti petunjuk (bukti komunikasi dan/atau bukti ekonomi), untuk membuktikan adanya perjanjian tidak tertulis dalam perkara perjanjian yang dilarang. Di dalam hukum persaingan usaha, dikenal konsep ekonomi price parallelism, yang menggambarkan kondisi penetapan harga di antara pelaku usaha, tetapi tidak didasarkan pada perjanjian atau kolusi secara sadar di antara pelaku usaha, melainkan murni karena keputusan independen para pelaku usaha sehingga tidak melanggar hukum persaingan usaha. Meskipun demikian, adanya price parallelism di antara pelaku usaha tidak menutup kemungkinan adanya perjanjian tidak tertulis di antara pelaku usaha sehingga dapat melanggar ketentuan di dalam perjanjian yang dilarang. Oleh karena itu, konsep price parallelism dapat dijadikan sebagai bukti ekonomi, tetapi terdapat sebab-sebab tertentu yang menentukan keberlakuannya sebagai bukti ekonomi. Fokus utama dalam skripsi ini adalah untuk menganalisis bagaimana hubungan price parallelism dengan hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia dan keberlakuannya sebagai bukti ekonomi di dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Dengan metode penelitian doktriner yang bersifat deskriptif, didapatkan hasil bahwa untuk menentukan hubungan price parallelism dengan hukum persaingan usaha harus didasarkan pada fakta ada atau tidaknya perjanjian di antara pelaku usaha yang menyebabkan terjadinya price parallelism. Sementara itu, untuk menentukan keberlakuan price parallelism sebagai bukti ekonomi harus didahului dengan analisis tambahan untuk melihat ada atau tidaknya perjanjian di antara pelaku usaha, dan/atau untuk melihat independensi para pelaku usaha yang terlibat dalam price parallelism, dan/atau untuk melihat ada atau tidaknya faktor-faktor lain yang menyebabkan terjadinya price parallelism.

---

Indonesian antitrust law regulates the provisions of prohibited agreements, where companies are prohibited from entering into agreement or arrangements with other companies as it may cause distortions to the competitive market. As it becomes increasingly difficult to prove the existence of a written agreement, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence (communication evidence and/or economic evidence) is being used to evidence the unwritten agreement in the case of prohibited agreements. In antitrust law, it is known the economic concept of price parallelism, depicting the condition of price fixing among companies, without the existence of conscious agreement or collusion, rather an independent decision of each companies, thus not violating the antitrust law. The existence of price parallelism, however, may not rule out the involvement of unwritten agreements among companies, leading to violations of the provisions of prohibited agreements. Consequently, price parallelism can be used as an economic evidence, but there are certain causes which determine its validity as an economic evidence. In this thesis, the primary focus is to analyze the relevance of price parallelism to the Indonesian antitrust law and its validity as economic evidence in the Indonesian antitrust law. Using the method of descriptive doctrinaire research, the results show that in determining the relevance of price parallelism to the Indonesian antitrust law is dependent on whether or not there were agreements among companies that led to price parallelism. Meanwhile, to ensure the validity of price parallelism as economic evidence must be preceded with factor-plus analysis to determine whether or not there were agreements among companies, and/or to determine the independence of each companies involved in price parallelism, and/or to determine whether or not there were other factors that could cause price parallelism."