Taser International

History

The company was founded in 1991 (under the name AIR TASER, Inc.) by brothers Rick and Tom Smith. The Smiths were distraught when two of Rick's former high school teammates were murdered in a road rage incident in Scottsdale. Stemming from the incident, they began working with Jack Cover to develop a TASER device. (Cover had developed an early version of an electrical weapon and in 1970 formed Taser Systems Inc. Cover's version, however, used gunpowder to launch its darts, classifying it as a firearm. This limited sales and the business collapsed.)

In November 1993, a non-firearm version of the device called the AIR TASER was developed, allowing it to bypass federal and state laws that only apply to firearms, and a tracking system (the anti-felon identification or AFID system) was created. This enables the weapon to disperse confetti with serial numbers when it is fired and links the specific weapon to the scene where it was used.

In 1998, the company adopted its current name to signal the company's international expansion. In the same year, the company began marketing the weapon to law enforcement agencies and police departments, in addition to private buyers who had bought TASER weapons for personal self-protection in prior years.

In May 2001, they filed for an initial public offering and began trading on NASDAQ under the stock symbol TASR.

In 2008, TASER began developing and manufacturing wearable video technology designed to record audio and video evidence from an officer’s perspective. Also in that time, TASER launched Evidence.com, a cloud-based, digital evidence management solution that allows police agencies to store, manage, and share audio/video data.

In April 2013, the Rialto Police Department released the results of a 12-month study on the impact of on-officer video using Axon Flex cameras. The study found an 88% drop in complaints filed against officers and nearly a 60% reduction in officer use-of-force incidents.

TASER opened an office in Seattle in 2013, and an international office in Amsterdam, Netherlands in May 2014.

In June 2015, Rick Smith announced that the Axon brand would be expanding to encompass the company's new product developments, including body-worn cameras, digital evidence management, and "future products and services". Since that time, TASER has announced several new products, including interview room cameras, an in-car video system, and a new body-worn camera.

Law Enforcement Models

There are two primary law enforcement models currently available:

Consumer Models

In addition to the law enforcement models, the company also offers devices to civilians and private security, including the TASER Pulse, C2, X26C, X2, and Strikelight.

Body-Worn Cameras

Previous models include the Axon Body, a predecessor to the current Axon Body 2.

Evidence.com

Evidence.com is a cloud-based digital evidence management system used to store and manage accumulated audio/video/photo data from body cameras, dash cameras, cell phones, or any other recording device. It is subscription based.

Evidence.com for Prosecutors

In addition to Evidence.com, TASER also offers Evidence.com for Prosecutors, a version of Evidence.com designed to help prosecutors manage the influx of digital evidence from police departments.

Axon Signal

An auto-activation technology that can start recordings on Axon cameras based on specific triggers, including light bar, crash, and door triggers, as well as Taser weapons.

Axon Fleet

In October 2015, TASER announced an in-car video system called Axon Fleet, designed to integrate with the company's existing products, including Axon Signal and Evidence.com. The system includes front- and rear-facing cameras, wi-fi upload, and auto-activation based on Axon Signal triggers.

Axon Interview

TASER announced a new interview room recording system in October 2015. The system captures audio and video in interview rooms and uploads the recordings into Evidence.com.

Mobile Applications

Axon Forensic Suite

Through partnership with Amped Software, TASER offers a set of products for processing and analyzing photo and video evidence:

Issues

According to TASER International, the company has lost two product liability lawsuits:

This lawsuit represents the fifty-ninth (59th) wrongful death or injury lawsuit that has been dismissed or judgment entered in favor of TASER International. This number includes a small number of police officer training injury lawsuits that were settled and dismissed in cases where the settlement economics to TASER International were significantly less than the cost of litigation. One of these cases is that on Feb. 15, 2006, one officer Officer accidentally discharged TASER device on his daughter. TASER International has lost two product liability lawsuits.

However, on June 6, 2008, the company lost its first product-liability suit. The damages were reduced in the Court of Appeals in 2011. TASER lost its second product liability suit In late January 2008, the public safety committee of the current Canadian House of Commons launched an investigation into their use, after the death of Robert Dziekanski. The coroner concluded that the death of Robert Dziekanski was a homicide, confirming that the Taser was the cause of death, and has the capacity to kill. The British Columbia government's Braidwood Inquiry is also currently underway.

In 2008, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted a test, and found that TASER X26 Stun Guns manufactured before 2005 have a faulty fail-safe system.

In 2015, it was discovered that several Taser International employees, without mentioning their employment status, left one-star negative reviews of Nick Berardini's film, Killing Them Safely, on the iTunes and Amazon websites. The film documents safety issues, injuries, and deaths caused by Tasers.

In November 2015, Taser filed a patent infringement complaint against Phazzer Electronics. In response, Phazzer was granted a reexamination request of Taser’s subject US Patent 7,234,262 by the USPTO, which is in the motion/discovery phase, as of the date of Taser’s 10-Q filing for the September 2016 quarter (2016-11-09).

In April 2015, Taser requested a re-examination of Digital Ally’s US Patent 8,781,292. In August 2015 the USPTO rejected all claims; however, in January 2016, the USPTO reversed itself, rejecting Taser’s assertions and confirming Digital Ally’s patent validity with 59 claims. In February 2016, the USPTO issued Digital Ally US Patent 9,253,452. As a result, in January and March 2016 Taser fielded patent infringement complaints filed by Digital Ally related to US Patents 8,781,292 and 9,253,452, which are in the discovery phase as of the date of Digital Ally’s 10-Q filing for the September 2016 quarter (2016-11-10). Discovery commenced in April 2016. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and a permanent injunction.

Restatements

On July 20, 2004, Taser determined to restate its consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, due to an error in its calculation of the deferred tax benefit. On April 19, 2005, Taser restated its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, because there is an error resulted from calculation of the future tax benefit to be received from employees' sale of stock. On Nov 15, 2005, Taser restated its first and second quarter of 2005 financial results, due to an error resulted from the incorrect accrual of legal and other professional fees. On May 12, 2006, Taser determined to restate results for the first quarter and "relevant prior periods", to correct an error in the way it calculated expenses.