We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksAxon Enterprise, Inc. (AXON), formerly Taser Intl.

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: nolimitz who wrote (884)1/16/2007 4:17:44 AM
From: John Carragher
   of 972
that's why it was posted.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: John Carragher1/20/2007 6:02:27 AM
   of 972
Taser Cam records stun gun shots

Friday January 19, 2007 2:32 PM PST - By: Dave White

Well, now we can have video evidence that all those belligerents who were Tasered into submission actually deserved it.

Taser International, makers of the stun guns popular with law enforcement officials, has brought out the Taser Cam, an attachment for the stun gun that shoots video of whatever the gun's "shooter" sees before and during the "shot." The camera, which fits in the gun's handle like a cordless drill battery pack, has a microphone as well and even an infrared illuminator, so those night-time shots aren't lost in the dark. The footage is easily transferred to a PC via a USB cable.

That's all well and good, but we fear that we'll be seeing these kinds of videos on Cops sooner rather than later. Regardless, the ability to record the circumstances surrounding the use of a stun gun will no doubt be a big help to both the users and the recipients. Check out the funny video below about a TaserCam victim.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: John Carragher1/22/2007 9:10:31 AM
   of 972
Court Dismisses Taser's Entire Case Against Bestex
Monday January 22, 9:00 am ET

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Bestex Company, Inc. today announced that the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, has ordered Taser International, Inc.'s (Nasdaq: TASR - News) entire case against Bestex Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court for Central District of California case no. CV 06- 2636 PA (SHx)) dismissed. On January 8, 2007, pursuant to Bestex Company, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment, the Court ordered Taser's claims against Bestex for patent infringement and false marking dismissed. Pursuant to the same motion by Bestex Company, Inc, the court had already on November 13, 2006 ordered Taser's claims against Bestex for breach of contract and tortuous interference with contract dismissed. The January 8, 2007 order also dismissed Taser's last remaining claim against Bestex for unfair competition by patent infringement and false marking. The January 8, 2007 order allows for the refiling by Bestex Company, Inc. of its state law claim against Taser for unfair competition/false advertising, which was filed in case CV 06-2636 PA along with a Lanham Act claim as a counter claim.

The Court also ordered Douglas Klint, Taser International, Inc.'s general counsel to "No later than January 16, 2007, the General Counsel of Taser international, Inc. shall file a declaration that addresses the following as well as any information he possesses about the failure to disclose the licensing agreement between John Cover and Anton Simson ... The theretofore "missing" license was critical to Bestex Company, Inc.'s arguments of non- infringement and was located by the Court, itself, as an attachment to a document signed by Taser International, Inc.'s C.E.O. Patrick "Rick" Smith, himself, and contained in the publicly available S.E.C. filings of Taser International, Inc. Taser International, Inc. had been arguing in its opposing papers that no such license existed. The Court's orders are available for public viewing through PACER an official case document retrieval site of the United States District Court at Taser's general counsel filed his declaration on January 16, 2007.

Bestex Company, Inc. also announced that it is now weighing whether to refile its California state unfair competition/false advertising claim and the filing of additional malicious prosecution, abuse of judicial process and Lanham Act unfair competition claims for Taser International, Inc.'s prosecution of case CV 06-2636 PA (SHx) and/or communications preliminary thereto. Commenting, Mr. Park, C.E.O. of Bestex Company, Inc., stated, "I don't know what Taser International, Inc. was here doing. As it regularly makes decisions that conflict between the interests of its members and of its public investors, it has always been my opinion that the integrity of a publicly held company's governance and executives is its greatest asset. One can only hope that Taser International, Inc. had no current knowledge of this license prior to filing case CV 06-2636 PA (SHx) and, otherwise, innocently, failed to disclose it, but the Cover to Simson license was attached to and effected a Cover to Taser International, Inc. license, which granted Taser International, Inc. the right to make, use and sell its gas propelled ammunition and which for years was a core asset, if not the core asset, of the company. Moreover, the license to Taser International, Inc. with the Cover to Simson license attached was signed by Taser International, Inc.'s current C.E.O. Patrick 'Rick' Smith."

Mr. Park continued "I am gratified that the Court has concurred with Bestex that Taser International, Inc.'s claims against Bestex Company, Inc. for patent infringement, false marking, breach of contract and tortuous interference with contract are legally baseless. Taser should never have initiated and certainly should not have continued the prosecution of this suit. It has always been Bestex Company, Inc.'s opinion that Taser International, Inc. initiated this suit only to convince its investors that it has a monopoly in the potentially huge consumer market for stun pistols and to, thereby, maintain the grossly speculative and unrealistic value of its stock, especially, as Stinger System Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: STIY - News) is now making great strides in the law enforcement market for stun pistols with its new S 200 model weapon with weapons already shipped to law enforcement and other major law enforcement agencies evaluating the technically advanced S 200. It has always been Bestex Company, Inc.'s opinion that in a completely competitive market with checked opportunities for expansion, Taser International, Inc.'s stock is ridiculously overpriced."

Mr. Park continued "It is interesting to note that in the wake of the dismissal of its patent infringement, false marking and unfair competition suit against Bestex Company, Inc., a seller of consumer stun guns, Taser International, Inc. has now filed a suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona case no. CV07-0042-PHX-DGC) against Stinger Systems, Inc., the only current competitive manufacturer of stun pistols for law enforcement, for patent infringement, false marking and unfair competition. One hopes that Taser International, Inc.'s patent infringement suit against Stinger Systems, Inc. has more merit than its patent infringement suit against Bestex Company, Inc. did and isn't just being filed in a desperate attempt to scare law enforcement agencies away from buying Stinger System, Inc.'s technically advanced S 200 weapon and/or to convince Taser International, Inc.'s investors that it has no competitors in the law enforcement market for stun pistols and, thereby, maintain what in Bestex Company, Inc.'s opinion is, again, the grossly speculative and unrealistic value of Taser's stock."

Finally, Mr. Park stated "While I have no ownership interest or agreements with Stinger Systems, Inc., whatsoever, I keep abreast of developments in my industry and have evaluated Stinger System, Inc.'s S 200 weapon and consider it the most technically advanced, effective and reasonably priced law enforcement stun pistol that I have seen in my over 20 years of experience in selling stun weapons. It would be an absolute shame if any underhanded tactics kept this extraordinary weapon out of the hands of our law enforcement protectors. One hopes that competitors can go toe to toe on the merits of their products alone. Bestex looks forward to continuing to compete against Taser International, Inc. in the consumer market with reliable stun weapons, priced for consumer consumption. Technical data and photographs of Stinger System, Inc.'s new S 200 weapon can be viewed at"

The Law Office of James Francis McNulty, Jr. handled Bestex Company, Inc.'s defense in case CV 06-2636 PA (SHx).

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: John Carragher who wrote (887)1/22/2007 11:54:30 AM
From: im a survivor
   of 972
This doesnt sound good.....How could TASR file that suit and claim they dont know of any licensing agreement, when it was signed by them and attached??

And now, it looks like BESTEX has grounds to sue TASR and now TASR is attempting to sue STINGER......And I suspect any suit filed against stinger will be followed by a countersuit from stinger against TASR and it looks as if 'STINGER has quite a few folks on their side', in this upcoming battle....

Sounds like this is getting a bit 'messy'.

Or it all could be just noise....doesnt look like the street cared about the news.

But 'ongoing lawsuits' are always interesting to 'hold' if you have a good stomach. The stock stops moving on fundamentals and only goes up or down based on what some judge said on that particular day......

Good luck to all...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: im a survivor who wrote (888)1/29/2007 7:55:23 AM
From: John Carragher
   of 972
31st Product Liability Lawsuit Dismissed Against TASER International
Monday January 29, 7:30 am ET

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Jan. 29, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (NasdaqGS:TASR - News), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices, announced that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the in-custody death product liability lawsuit filed by the estate of Milton Woolfolk, Jr., Plaintiff, against TASER International, Inc. This is the thirty-first (31st) wrongful death or injury lawsuit that has been dismissed or judgment entered in favor of TASER International. TASER International has not lost any product liability lawsuit.

``This dismissal together with the unanimous defense jury verdict we received in the Alvarado in-custody death litigation in California as well as the recent Holcomb wrongful death dismissal and the Hasse wrongful death dismissal is confirmation that our strategy of not settling and vigorously defending these lawsuits is successful,'' commented Douglas Klint, Vice President and General Counsel of TASER International, Inc. ``This dismissal is significant for the Company since the court specifically retained jurisdiction for the purposes of imposing sanctions for attorneys' fees and costs. TASER International will be filing motions for sanctions for attorneys' fees and costs and will aggressively pursue collection of these monies. This lawsuit was clearly frivolous since plaintiff was unable to produce any expert who could testify that the TASER(r) device was the cause of Mr. Woolfolk's death.''

About TASER International, Inc.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: John Carragher2/21/2007 8:52:05 AM
   of 972
Taser Int'l 4Q Earnings Climb to $2.3M
Wednesday February 21, 8:40 am ET
Stun Gun Maker Taser International Fourth-Quarter Profit Rises to $2.3 Million on Strong Sales

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (AP) -- Stun gun maker Taser International Inc. said Wednesday its fourth-quarter profit surged on strong sales.
Net income grew to $2.3 million, or 4 cents per share, in the three months ended Dec. 31 from $179,126, or breakeven per share, in the year-ago period.

Revenue rose 53 percent to $19.3 million from $12.6 million.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expected earnings per share of 4 cents on revenue of $19.2 million.

For the full year, the company posted a loss of $4.1 million, or 7 cents per share, due to hefty shareholder litigation settlement expenses, compared with a profit of $1.1 million, or 2 cents per share, in 2005.

Revenue rose to $67.7 million from $47.7 million.

The company said it expects to make its final litigation settlement payment of $8 million in cash late in the first quarter of 2007, pending final court approval of the settlement.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: John Carragher who wrote (890)3/6/2007 12:28:16 PM
From: nolimitz
   of 972
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., March 6, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. a market leader in advanced electronic control devices announced that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, entered an order dismissing with prejudice the in-custody death product liability lawsuit filed by the estate of Lewis Sanks King, Plaintiff, against TASER International, Inc. This is the thirty-fifth wrongful death or injury lawsuits that has been dismissed or judgment entered in favor of TASER International. TASER has not lost any product liability lawsuit.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: nolimitz who wrote (891)3/6/2007 12:42:41 PM
From: John Carragher
   of 972
somebody i think mentioned here one time. tasr buys them all off. settles out of court. then calls it a court dismissal.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: gladman4/29/2007 12:54:13 PM
   of 972
Pocket Taser Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife. This was submitted
by a guy who purchased his lovely wife a "pocket Taser" for their
anniversary. Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn
Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 22nd anniversary
and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Toni. What
I came across was a 100,000 volt,pocket/ purse sized taser. The effects
of the taser were suppose to be short lived, with no long-term adverse
affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to
safety ....

Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded
two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I
was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND
pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get the blue
arch of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.
Awesome!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Toni what that burn
spot is on the face of her microwave.

Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that
it couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right?!!!
There Is at in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently
(trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking
that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving
target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of
a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I
was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a
mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am
I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading
glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one
hand, taser in another. The directions said that a one second burst
would shock and disorient your assailant; a two second burst was
supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a
three second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the
ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds
would be wasting the batteries.

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5"
long,less than 3/4" in circumference; pretty cute really and loaded
with two itsy, bitsy AAA batteries) thinking to myself, "no possible way!"

What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my
best..... I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head
cocked to one side as to say, "don't do it master," reasoning that a
one second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all
that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for the
heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button,

I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in throuh the side door, picked me
up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and
over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the
fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples
on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under
my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs. The cat was
standing over me making meowing sounds I had never heard before,
licking my face, undoubtedly thinking to herself, "do it again, do it

Note: If you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, one
note of caution: There is no such thing as a one second burst when you
zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged
from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three
second burst would be considered conservative.

SON-OF-A-.. that hurt like h_ _ _!!! A minute or so later (I can't be
sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), collected my wits
(what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent
reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. How did they up
get there??? My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still
twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my
bottom lip weighed 88 lbs.

I'm still looking for my testicles? I'm offering a significant reward
for their safe return.

Still in shock, Numb nuts

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: John Carragher5/1/2007 5:52:03 PM
   of 972
Taser Taps New Markets
By Frank Curzio Contributor
5/1/2007 3:03 PM EDT

Editor's note: This Stocks Under $10 alert was originally sent to subscribers April 30 at 2:55 p.m. EDT. It's being republished as a bonus for and readers.


After you read this, we will initiate a 600-share position in Taser International (TASR - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) in the Stocks Under $10 model portfolio. Last week, the stun-gun maker reported quarterly results that fell short of estimates, creating an opportune entry point for us. Shares were recently trading at $8.35 and have a very favorable risk/reward at the current price.

On April 3, Taser warned that its results for the first quarter would miss estimates because of the delay of some orders. Shares sank below $8 on the news, given the high expectations following last quarter's solid results. Taser is now 22% off its 52-week high around $11, set a year ago, while most of the major indices have seen gains of 15% or more over the same time frame.

One of the biggest disappointments for the quarter was a drop in gross margins to 58.1% from 64.5% last year. Lower gross margins are normally seen as a negative, but this decline was the result of three setbacks: lower sales from the delay of several orders, investments in upcoming product launches, and additional costs associated with expanding capacity to meet growing demand.

So let's examine these issues in more detail.

Sizing Up the Setbacks
First, let's look at the delays. Management confirmed that many orders are still on track, but large orders tend to take longer to be completed because they involve more bureaucracy as city managers and councils wrestle with getting budgets approved. This drawn-out process was evident in the purchase of 3,000 Taser stun guns by the Pennsylvania State Troopers agency on April 4, which was later than anticipated. Meanwhile, an expected order from the Los Angeles Police Department, which employs 6,000 officers, has been delayed since last fall because of similar bureaucratic hurdles.

As for new products, Taser recently launched the C2, a self-defense stun gun for the consumer. The company is in the early stages of an advertising campaign and expects to eventually sell the product in sporting goods stores and other retail outlets. Also, the company just launched the Taser Cam -- a camera with audio capability that attaches to its signature X26 law enforcement stun-gun model.

The Taser Cam -- which provides evidence of hostile situations in which police officers use a stun gun over a handgun -- creates several catalysts for the company to boost revenue, including an add-on sales base to its largest selling product. Currently, there are more than 187,000 X26 stun guns in the field that could potentially be upgraded with the Taser Cam.

The last setback stemmed from the enormous demand internationally, which has created additional costs for Taser as it increases production capacity. International sales now account for 14% of total revenue, up from just 4% in 2004. The company is focusing on the U.K. and especially France, which made an initial purchase in December.

French presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently leads in the polls, has stated that he would like to place a Taser stun gun in all 100,000 police cruisers in the country. Also, there are 250,000 to 300,000 officers in France, another potential market. Assuming that just 20% of French police officers are required to have Tasers, this would open up a sizable revenue stream, not only from the sale of stun guns, but for Taser Cams and cartridges -- which is the company's second-largest revenue generator.

The U.K. could also represent a huge area for international growth; its police force is awaiting government approval to allow Tasers to be deployed to all officers. Also, New Zealand is trying the stun guns in a one-year trial, with positive results so far, according to Taser's management. Two other European countries, which management did not specify, have recently begun trials of Taser stun guns.

So, while lower margins for the quarter raised a temporary red flag, we believe the miss was justified. The delayed orders will most likely be booked, and the company's new products and increasing cost to expand capacity will pay off over the longer term as orders begin to flow in, especially from markets abroad.

A Solid Balance Sheet
Taser also looks attractive from a financial perspective. The company has relatively no debt and about $16 million in cash. Although shares are trading at about 22 times expected 2008 earnings per share of 37 cents, revenue is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 36% over the next three years, according to Capital IQ. This estimate does not include the international growth potential we highlighted above.

Taser also has a $10 million share-buyback program in place, of which only $2.2 million has been completed. It would not surprise us to see management step in at these levels and buy back more of its shares.

Despite these huge growth opportunities, there are risks, notably on the legal side. The company has been involved in numerous lawsuits from individuals claiming that Taser stun guns caused injury, and even death in some cases. However, the company has been aggressive in fighting these accusations, which has resulted in many dismissals.

As of the latest quarter, there were 47 total pending lawsuits, down from 57 the previous quarter, and 44 lawsuits that have been dismissed. So far, the plaintiffs in each case have not been able to prove that the Taser device was the cause of any injury or death. The company also has more than 80 medical studies that affirm the safety of the product, and its introduction of the Taser Cam will likely provide evidence in real-time situations, validating the company's claim that Taser stun guns are safe.

So despite the potential drag as these lawsuits wind their way through the legal system, we believe the shares could move in excess of 25% in the short term, based on Taser's international growth potential and its line of new products being rolled out this year.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10