Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and in doing so made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called “rule of reason” analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that the exhaustion doctrine is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a c omponent when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to practice the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

Factual background

LG Electronics (LGE) owned several patents on methods and systems for processing information. It entered into two contracts with Intel. In the License Agreement, LGE authorized Intel to make and sell microprocessor products using the patented inventions. Moreover, the License Agreement expressly stated that no license was granted to any third party for combining licensed products with other products (for example, for combining Intel microprocessor products with other parts of a computer). The License Agreement also provided, however, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties agree that nothing herein shall in any way limit or alter the effect of patent exhaustion that would otherwise apply when a party hereto sells any of its Licensed Products.”

In the Master Agreement, LGE required Intel to give its customers notice that the patent license does not extend to any product made by combining a licensed Intel microprocessor product with any other product (for example, a computer containing the Intel microprocessor products). The Master Agreement also provided that its breach would have no effect on the License Agreement and would not be grounds for its termination. Apparently, LGE was willing to allow Intel’s customers to combine the microprocessor products with products not licensed by LGE, but only upon payment of a further royalty to LGE for the right to do so. This point is not discussed in the Court’s opinion, which recites the facts only in very limited terms because the record was under seal to protect trade secrets.

Quanta Computer purchased licensed Intel microprocessor products and proceeded to manufacture computers containing them. In doing so, Quanta followed Intel’s specifications, which in turn led to practice of the patented methods and making the patented systems that LGE licensed to Intelâ€"â€"since that was the way Intel had designed its microprocessor products. (The trial court found that the Intel microprocessor products were without any reasonable noninfringing use.) LGE then sued Quanta for patent infringement.

Quanta prevailed in the district court under the exhaustion doctrine, but on appeal the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply because of the statement in the Master Agreement that combination products were not licensed, given the Federal Circuit's 1992 ruling in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. that a seller of patented goods could by notice impose a post-sale restraint on its customer's use of the goods. Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply, in any event, to method patents.

Mallinckrodt background

In Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. , the Federal Circuit had held that patent owners could condition the sale of patented goods with a restrictive notice and thereby restrict the disposition of the goods by the purchasers, with the exception of antitrust law violations, such as price-fixing and tie-in restrictions, or violations of "some other law or policy." More specifically, the Mallinckrodt court had said, “Unless the condition violates some other law or policy (in the patent field, notably the misuse or antitrust law),” patent owners, licensees and downstream purchasers "retain the freedom to contract concerning conditions of sale."

The Federal Circuit went on to say that "[t]he appropriate criterion” in determining whether "a restriction or condition . . . placed upon the sale of a patented article" is valid "is whether [the patentee's or licensor's] restriction is reasonably within the patent grant, or whether the patentee has ventured beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason.” According to the court, the tests for restrictions and misuse were alike, outside the tie-in and price fixing area: “To sustain a misuse defense involving a licensing arrangement not held to have been per se anticompetitive by the Supreme Court, a factual determination must reveal that the overall effect of the license tends to restrain competition unlawfully in an appropriately defined relevant market.”

But this Federal Circuit test is contrary to many decisions of both the Supreme Court and other courts of appeals. For example, in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the legality of licenses under which royalties were paid on total sales of all products, irrespective of whether the licensor’s patents covered all products. The Court held that such licensing was permissible when the licensor and licensee adopted it for mutual convenience to simplify administration of the license, but it was impermissible for the licensor to insist upon it over the licensee’s opposition. Such conduct was misuse, the Court held, but not an antitrust violation unless the other elements of an antitrust violation were also shown, such as market power.

Earlier, in Brulotte v. Thys Co. , the Supreme Court held that it was patent misuse if, without more, a patentee charged royalties that extended beyond the statutory term of the patent. In National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a patentee misused its patent by requiring licensees to agree not to deal in the technology of the patentee’s competitors. Thus, in these cases, among many others, the Supreme Court and other federal courts had found misuse in cases not involving price fixing or tie-ins, and had not required any rule-of-reason or relevant-market analysis.

Other Federal Circuit decisions followed the Mallinckrodt approach, which was, at the very least, divergent from Supreme Court decisions. Accordingly, when certiorari was granted in Quanta, it was widely surmised that the Supreme Court would overturn Mallinckrodt, which many (including the United States Solicitor General, viewed as inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Supreme Court opinion

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, in an opinion by Justice Thomas.

Method claims

First, the Court said, the distinction between method and product claims is insupportable. In United States v. Univis Lens Co., the most recent decision of the Court on exhaustion, some of the patents held exhausted were method patents. Earlier, in Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, some patents covered a method of combusting gasoline in an automobile engineâ€"â€"and the exhaustion doctrine was held applicable. Furthermore, because it is easy to write patent claims for the same invention either in method format or apparatus format, the exhaustion doctrine could easily be evaded if reliance on method claims was sufficient to avoid exhaustion: By “including a method claim for the machine’s patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.”

Exhaustion and related patents

The Court then turned to the extent, if any, to which exhaustion of the patent rights on the microprocessor products exhausted patent rights relating to the combination products on which LGE had patents. In the Univis case the sale that exhausted patent rights was a sale of an unpatented semifinished lens blank, which subsequent processing turned into a patented finished lens. The Intel microprocessor products were finished commercial articles of commerce, but in this case the trial court had found as a fact that the microprocessor products had no noninfringing use, just as in the Univis case the semifinished lens blanks had no use but to be finished into the patented finished lens blanks. Therefore, the Court found Univis dispositive. In the Quanta Court’s language, in Univis “exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they ‘embodie[d] essent ial features of [the] patented invention.’”

LGE did not challenge the claim that the intended and reasonable use of the microprocessor products was to incorporate them into computers, but it claimed that some noninfringing uses existed: they could be sold overseas, as repair parts, or by disabling the features that made them patented. The Court dismissed these arguments. As for disablement, the Court asserted that the disabled device aspects (“features”) rather than the device that remained must have a noninfringing use, so that disabling them would cause them to have “no real use.” As for foreign or replacement use, the legal test to be looked to was whether the product would perform the patented method or embody the patented product, not whether the use gave rise to infringement liability.

A further reason why sales of the microprocessor products exhausted LGE’s patent rights was that “everything inventive about each patent is embodied in” the licensed Intel products, which “embody the essential features of the [licensed] patents because they carry out all the inventive processes when combined, according to their design, with standard components.” Any point of noveltyâ€"that is, respect in which the claimed invention departs from the prior artâ€"is found in the licensed microprocessor products rather than in the combination product of which they are components.

This last aspect of the Quanta opinion is very similar to the doctrine of the Lincoln Engineering case, a doctrine that the Federal Circuit had previously held to be no longer authoritative. Under the Supreme Court's Lincoln Engineering doctrine, the combination of a newly invented device with a known, conventional device with which the new device cooperates in the conventional and predictable way in which devices of those types have previously cooperated is unpatentable as an “exhausted combination” or “old combination.” Thus, when the Quanta Court said that “everything inventive about each patent is embodied in” the licensed Intel products, which “embody the essential features of the [licensed] patents," the Court was, in effect, saying that the combination of a novel Intel microprocessor in a conventional manner with an old personal computer is an exhausted combination. Accordingly, no weight would be put on the fact that separate patents had issued to LGE on the inventive device and on the old combination that included it.

Licensing a limited field

LGE’s argument for non-exhaustion sought to invoke the doctrine of General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. In that case, the patentee had granted no license for “commercial” amplifiers. Therefore, when a manufacturer licensed only in the “non-commercial” field of use sold an amplifier to an accused infringer, who knowingly resold it in the commercial market, the manufacturer “could not convey to [the accused infringer] what both knew it was not authorized to sell.” By parity of reasoning, LGE said, it had licensed Intel only in the field of manufacturing microprocessor products for combination with specified products and not with other products. But the Court said that was not how LGE had drafted its license to Intel:

LGE overlooks important aspects of the structure of the…transaction. Nothing in the License Agreement restricts Intel’s right to sell its microprocessors…to purchasers who intend to combine them with non-Intel parts. It broadly permits Intel to make, use, or sell products free of the patent claims. To be sure, LGE did require Intel to give notice to its customers, including Quanta, that LGE had not licensed those customers to practice its patents. But neither party contends that Intel breached the agreement in that respect.

LGE points out that the License Agreement specifically disclaimed any license to third parties to practice the patents by combining licensed products with other components. But the question whether third parties received implied licenses is irrelevant because Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion. And exhaustion turns only on Intel’s own license to sell products practicing the…patents.

The Court appears to be saying that LGE simply licensed Intel to make, use, and sell microprocessor products. LGE expressly stated that no license was granted to any third party for combining licensed products with other products; and LGE made Intel tell its customers about the absence of a license. But LGE did not say to Intel that LGE licensed Intel to make, use, and sell microprocessor products only in the field of microprocessor products combined with other LGE-licensed products (so-called Intel products). There was no explicit field-of-use limitation on Intel’s manufacturing, using, and selling rightsâ€"â€"no “magic words.” LGE came closeâ€"â€"it said it was not licensing third parties to combine licensed product with other products, and it required Intel to notify customers of thatâ€"â€"but LGE failed to go right to the point and expressly deny Intel any license to make microprocessor products that would be combined with other products. Furthermore, for some ine xplicable reason the parties, with fatal effect, red-flagged the fact that there still was an exhaustion doctrine: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties agree that nothing herein shall in any way limit or alter the effect of patent exhaustion that would otherwise apply when a party hereto sells any of its Licensed Products.”

That this was a critical error (for LGE) is confirmed by the Court’s final statements in its opinion:

The License Agreement authorized Intel to sell products that practiced the patents. No conditions limited Intel’s authority to sell products substantially embodying the patents. …Intel’s authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.

Thus, the exhaustion doctrine governed what Quanta could lawfully do with what it bought from Intel. The failure to give third parties a license to combine Intel microprocessor product with other products had no legal significance, because the exhaustion doctrine obviated any need for such a license. Having bought the products from an authorized seller, Quanta didn't need any license.

No contract issue

Just before closing, the Court added a final note pointing out that the case did not raise, and the Court did not rule on, whether LGE could have enforced a contractual restriction. In footnote 7, the Court commented:

We note that the authorized nature of the sale to Quanta does not necessarily limit LGE’s other contract rights. LGE’s complaint does not include a breach-of-contract claim, and we express no opinion on whether contract damages might be available even though exhaustion operates to eliminate patent damages.

By the same token, the Court said nothing as to specific performance or whether contract rights, if any, could be enforced against Quanta.

Impact and issues that the court did not consider

The impact of Quanta is problematic, largely because the decision avoided deciding many issues, presumably in the interest of maintaining consensus. (The decision was unanimous.) One academic commented:

It is a very disappointing decision from the Court. It decided so little, and it was such an important case. You are left reading tea leaves.

The Court's failure to approve or reject the precedent on which the Federal Circuit had relied in its decision in Quanta, Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., which had limited the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine when a sale was made "conditional," further contributed to business uncertainty about permissible license restrictions. But, as one commentator observed:

The Supreme Court, in Quanta, was widely expected to rule on whether Mallinckrodt was good law. But the Court sidestepped the issue by narrowly interpreting the license agreement so that it was not a conditional license. ...Because the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue, it remains unclear to what extent a patentee can use a conditional license to impose restrictions on downstream purchasers.

To be sure, in Quanta, the Court held that “[t]he longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item.” But what constitutes "authorization"? The Court did not address the issue of "constructive" authorizationâ€"that is, authorization as a matter of law in certain circumstances, whether or not the patentee or licensor likes it or even tries very hard to avoid it. Accordingly, it is uncertain to what extent Quanta undoes Mallinckrodt. That seems to be the unstated message in Quanta, but the Federal Circuit may take an impenitent view, in defiance of the Solicitor General's views as amicus.

Other transactional forms

There are a number of important issues that the Court did not address in Quanta. One such omission is the Court’s failure to say anything about the other possible formats that this transaction might have usedâ€"such as a sale by a manufacturing licensee with a limitation on its grant, or (alternatively) a sale by the patentee or its licensee with explicit restrictions imposed on the buyer's freedom to dispose of the product. The Court did not explain whether or in what circumstances these other formats would be legally effective.

The first of these possible formats follows the pattern of the General Talking Pictures case. The second format follows the pattern of the Mallinckrodt case. Under the General Talking Pictures doctrine, a patentee may limit the scope of a manufacturer-licensee's license to a defined fieldâ€"such as microprocessors not incorporated into computersâ€"and then the use of those micropressors as computer components is a patent infringement. This is the format that LGE mistakenly thought it was using. Under the Mallinckrodt doctrine, a sale of a patented product subject to a restrictionâ€"such as you must not sell this microprocessor for use as a computer componentâ€"is a "conditional," rather than "unconditional," sale. If the condition is violated the conduct is patent infringement. The exhaustion doctrine does not apply under the rule stated in Mallinkrodt. However, as Quanta seemingly holds, when a restriction is not clearly and explicitly stated the exhaustion doctrine applies.

Resolving the "anomaly"

In a brief to the Supreme Court (at its request) when the petition for writ of certiorari was pending, the US Solicitor General observed that a curious "anomaly" existed between the exhaustion doctrine and General Talking Pictures doctrine:

[T]here is a seeming anomaly in allowing a patentee to achieve indirectly â€"- through an enforceable condition on the licensee â€"â€" a limitation on use or resale that [because of the exhaustion doctrine] the patentee could not itself impose on a direct purchaser, [yet] the distinction is a necessary and explicable result of the Court’s decision in General Talking Pictures.

For reasons that so far have not been explained in any publicly available document, the Government deleted this passage from its subsequent brief on the merits. As the Government brief suggested, on the one hand, the exhaustion doctrine prohibits post-sale restraints on a patentee’s (or its licensee’s) sale of goods, while on the other hand General Talking Pictures permits a patentee to place post-sale limitations on its manufacturing licensee’s sale of goods if the license to manufacture uses the right, magic words. Nothing in the Quanta opinion addresses this "seeming anomaly," much less attempts to resolve it or synthesize the competing doctrines.

Can contract trump the exhaustion doctrine?

The Court, in a footnote quoted above (the Court's note 7), expressly refrained from stating any of the following: whether contractual language could overcome, or prevent triggering, the exhaustion doctrine; if so, what language would be effective to do so; and whether the surrounding circumstances would be relevant.

To the extent that the exhaustion doctrine is grounded in considerations of public policy, and to the extent that the interests of the public and third parties (such as Quanta in the Quanta case) are to be considered as well as those of the contracting parties, the courts may be more likely to place limits on whether the parties can by contract make the doctrine inapplicable to the goods that are the subject of their contract. On the other hand, if the policy of the exhaustion doctrine is seen merely as a rule to make sure that downstream purchasers get fair notice that their use of goods whose purchase they are considering will be restricted, courts may be more likely to uphold such restrictions unless they collide with other policies, such as those of competition or antitrust law.

The Court explicitly refused to consider this issue in Quanta. The Quanta court did make clear, however, that it recognized the fundamental difference in law between a sale of patented goods by a patentee and a patentee’s license of another to manufacture the patented goods, which the Supreme Court had explained in United States v. General Electric Co. At the same time, the Court made it clear that LGE had failed to license Intel (the seller to Quanta) in language that invoked the General Talking Pictures doctrine, which could have changed the outcome, as discussed above in the section of this article captioned “Licensing a limited field.”

The House of Lords considered whether contract could trump the similar doctrine against derogation from title in British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co.. This is the doctrine that a seller may not successfully take actions, such as enforcing an intellectual property right, that decrease the value of what the seller has sold to a purchaser. The House of Lords ruled that contract could not be used to lessen the rights of end user purchasers, at least purchasers of consumer products such as motor cars.

Subsequent decisions

Static Control

In Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 575 (E.D. Ky, 2009), the district court reconsidered its former decision in this case and granted a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of the accused infringer. The court said that the Supreme Court’s Quanta decision “has changed the landscape of the doctrine of patent exhaustion generally, and specifically” required a reversal of the judgment, so that SCCI was not liable to Lexmark for patent infringement.

Lexmark had sought to restrict the refilling of its toner cartridges by relying on the Mallinckrodt doctrine. However, it did not enter into any conventional bilateral contract selling the toner cartridges to the public on a “conditional sale” basis. Instead, Lexmark relied on “shrinkwrap licenses,” and restrictive notices accompanying the products. The court considered these ineffective to prevent application of the exhaustion doctrine, despite Mallinckrodt’s approval of their use.

The court acknowledged that, “[a]s Lexmark points out, the Supreme Court did not expressly overrule Mallinckrodt in its Quanta opinion.” Nonetheless, the court concluded:

After reviewing Quanta, Mallinckrodt, and the parties' arguments, this Court is persuaded that Quanta overruled Mallinckrodt sub silentio. The Supreme Court's broad statement of the law of patent exhaustion simply cannot be squared with the position that the Quanta holding is limited to its specific facts. Further, the Federal Circuit relied in part on Mallinckrodt in reaching its decision in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the decision the Supreme Court reversed in Quanta. It is also worth noting that the Quanta decision did not mention a single Federal Circuit case.

On the other hand, the court did not consider Quanta to have foreclosed the enforcement of the shrinkwrap restrictions under state contract law. The contract law aspects of the case became moot, however, because Lexmark voluntarily dismissed its claims based on Static Control's tortious interference with contract.

Impression Products

In April 2015, the Federal Circuit sua sponte called for briefing and amicus curiae participation in an en banc consideration of whether Mallinckrodt should be overruled in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the Quanta case. The court ordered:

In light of Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), should this court overrule Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), to the extent it ruled that a sale of a patented article, when the sale is made under a restriction that is otherwise lawful and within the scope of the patent grant, does not give rise to patent exhaustion?

References

Learn more »

Headquartered in San Diego, California, LifeProof is a consumer electronics accessory company acquired in 2013 by OtterBox. The company designs, manufactures, and markets cases that protect smartphone and tablet functionality and condition from water, snow, dirt, and shock. Their products include cases, flotation jacketing, belt clips, headphones, chargers, connectors, arm bands, bike mounts, and photography equipment.

History

LifeProof was founded in 2009 by Gary Rayner, an Australian serial entrepreneur with an MBA in Business from Queensland University of Technology. After 18 months and a $1 million investment, the its public debut at the 2011 LAUNCH Conference where it won awards for best product and best presentation after a demonstration with a LifeProof protected iPhone 4 that included dropping it on the ground, smothering it in ketchup, mustard, and dirt, followed by successfully rinsing it off in a fish tank.

In August 2011, rival manufacturer Otterbox filed a patent suit claiming the company infringed on four properties pertaining to protective device enclosures. On October 10, 2012, Ironman announced LifeProof as an official sponsor during the Ironman World Championship in Kona, Hawaii. Announced November 27, 2012, LifeProof became a Participating Sponsor of all 2013 XTERRA Triathlon events, marketing, and media in the United States. On January 7, 2013, LifeProof announced a partnership with Belkin EMEA. Belkin EMEA will be responsible for sales and distribution of LifeProof products in Europe.

On May 23, 2013, when the company was acquired by Otterbox for an undisclosed amount, the Colorado court officially terminated the patent suit case.

Products

The LifeProof Nüüd is a technology that exposes the original screen of the device while protecting the phone from water, dirt, snow, and drop damage. This allows for zero visual interference, glare, loss of contrast or touch interference. The technology is currently supported on the iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, Galaxy S3, Galaxy S4, Galaxy S5, iPad, and iPad Mini.

The Lifeproof FrÄ" is a technology based on LifeProof's original technological developments and provides built-in scratch protection to safely shield device touchscreens from damage. The product is also completely waterproof, dirtproof, snowproof, and dropproof. It is currently available for the iPhone 4s, iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, Galaxy S3, Galaxy S4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy S6, Galaxy S7, Droid Turbo, Droid Turbo 2, Droid Maxx 2, LG G5, iPad Mini 1-4, and iPod Touch 5G and 6G. A Lifeproof FrÄ" Power case for the iPhone 6 incorporates a slimline battery to double the battery life of the phone, while protecting the phone from water, dirt, snow, and drop damage.

Technology

LifeProof combines many technologies to create a case that protects electronic devices from the inside out. The case will make the phone waterproof, dirtproof, snowproof, and shockproof. LifeProof's case for Apple iPhones only adds ¹â„₁₆ inch (1.6 mm) to the sides of the phone. The case combines a polycarbonate frame, waterproof acoustic ports, a waterproof screen protector that is still fully touch sensitive, and a built-in optical glass that covers over the phone's camera lenses to prevent loss of photographic detail. Every LifeProof case is put together in a two-part snap-together assembly that has a thin polymer gasket where it closes. Each case then becomes fully waterproof after sealing, and also seals the charging port via a hinged, gasketed door.

To waterproof the earphone jack, LifeProof created a screw-in seal that can be used when the jack is not in use. To use the jack and still maintain the waterproof function, LifeProof provides a short waterproof earphone extension wire that screws into the jack on the case. When used with waterproof earphones, this allows a swimmer to listen to music while fully underwater, provided that the swimmer remains near the surface. For deeper submersion or vigorous surfing, a dive case with a higher rating is useful. Optional "Lifejacket Float" flotation jacketing can be added to some models to prevent the equipment from sinking if dropped into water.

LifeProof claims that it water tests every case before shipping. Following the first test, LifeProof will send the case to an independent agent to perform additional tests. If the case passes both tests, the case will be shipped, and if the case does not pass, it will be scrapped. Every LifeProof case meets a military standard as well. The MIL STD 810G-516.6 is the United States Military Standard that deals with the functional drop of an electronic device. The standard requires that the tested item can physically and functionally withstand the frequent, repetitive shocks encountered in transportation, service, and handling. In addition, LifeProof cases meet the international IP-68 standard for dust and water protection. The case is required to withstand an eight-hour sequence of circulating dust particles, and one hour completely submerged under water at a depth of 2 metres (6 ft 7 in). LifeProof recommends that the end user test a new case for waterproofness before installing e lectronic equipment.

References

Learn more »

Magpul Industries Corporation is an American designer and manufacturer of polymer and composite high-tech firearms accessories. The corporate headquarters is based in Austin, Texas in the United States. Magpul Industries takes its name from its first product, an accessory for US and NATO armed forces STANAG magazines that aided users in pulling the magazine out of its pouch, hence "Magpul".

The company manufactures a variety of products from firearms accessories and slings to electronics cases based largely on in-house design as well as providing design consultation and firearms training services. The company has also engaged in political advocacy in recent years on behalf of the firearm industry in its former home state of Colorado. Magpul announced its intention to leave Colorado in 2013 when new gun control laws caused many of its products to become illegal in the state in which they were manufactured; it has relocated its factories to Wyoming and its offices to Texas.

Background

Magpul Industries Corp was founded in 1999 by Richard M. Fitzpatrick, a Sergeant of the United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance. The company currently has two divisions: Magpul Industries, which manufactures firearms accessories etc.; and Magpul Core (formerly Magpul Dynamics), founded in 2008, which delivers firearms training, including instructional videos.

Magpul primarily designs, manufactures, and distributes accessories for the AR-15/M16 rifles, AK-47 rifles, Remington 870 and Mossberg 500/590 12ga. shotguns, and it has also expanded into the area of rifle chassis for the Remington 700 and Ruger 10/22.

Chronology

1999: Richard Fitzpatrick develops the original Magpul 5.56 and introduces it at NDIA.

2000: The Magpul 7.62 and Magpul 9mm are introduced.

2001: First Magpul patent, U.S. Patent 6,212,815, is awarded.

2002: First official military order (100 M93 stocks for the USMC.)

2003: Magpul moves out of Fitzpatrick's home to official offices. First employee, (now Chief operating officer) Doug Smith, is hired.

2004: The Magpul Ranger Plate, Self Leveling Follower, and MIAD (MIssion ADaptable Grip) are introduced.

2005: Additional magazine accessories are introduced, as well as the company's second stock; the PRS.

2006: Magpul receives its first official NATO Stock Number, and their products are featured in the movie Mission Impossible 3.

2007: The PMAG 30 (a synthetic magazine for the AR-15/M16s), UBR stock, and Masada Adaptive Combat Rifle are introduced at SHOT Show.

2008: The MOE (Magpul Original Equipment) line, Magpul PDR Concept, FMG9, and Magpul Massoud are introduced. Magpul Dynamics is formed.

2009: The EMAG ("Export Magazine"), designed to fit other STANAG 4179-compliant weapons such as the HK416 and SA80 aside from just the AR-15/M16, is introduced, as well as several other products such as the MBUS (Magpul Back-Up Sights).

2010: Magpul wins a bid with the UK Ministry of Defence for 1,000,000 EMAGs to be delivered over a four-year period. Several new products are introduced; including the iPhone Field Case.

2011: The MBUS2 is introduced, and is also featured in promos for the game Battlefield 3. First 100,000 EMAGs of the UK MOD contract are delivered to troops in Afghanistan. Magpul sponsors a truck called "Bam-Bam" in the Breslau Adventure Rallye.

2012: The PMAG 30 Gen 3 is released in fall as a synthetic magazine compatible for all STANAG 4179-type rifles, from AR-15 rifles to weapons that previously would need EMAGs.

2015: The Hunter 700 ("Adjustable rifle stock"), designed to fit the Remington 700, short action, rifle, is introduced at SHOT Show in January 2015.

2016: Magpul was awarded an exclusive contract to manufacture magazines for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Firearms accessories

• Magpul: Magpul's first and eponymously named product was a simple soft polymer sleeve based on the "paracord loops" that experienced soldiers fabricated and taped to their magazines to allow for easier removal from magazine pouches. The original magpul fit over STANAG magazines, and allowed for operators to easily grasp and draw magazines from pouches and webbing under stress.
• Magpul Ranger Plate An aftermarket floor plate for aluminum USGI M16/M4 magazines with a hard plastic loop built into it; it acts as an integral MagPul loop.
• Magpul L-Plate An aftermarket floor plate for aluminum USGI M16/M4 magazines with a rubber bottom to prevent magazine damage when the magazine is dropped on hard surfaces.
• Enhanced Self Leveling Follower: an improved magazine follower for aluminum USGI M16/M4 magazines; it prevents the follower of the magazine from tilting horizontally and causing weapon malfunctions.
• PMAG magazine: An enhanced magazine specifically designed for the M4/M16/AR-15, PDR and ACR, featuring an all polymer, high strength body and anti-tilt follower. As it is designed for the AR-15, PDR and Adaptive Combat Rifle, they will not fit properly in most other STANAG type rifles (ex. IMI TAVOR, BAF SA80, FN F2000).
• PMAG 30G MagLevel magazine: A PMAG magazine designed for the HK proprietary magazine version of the Heckler & Koch G36 series.
• PMAG 30 AK/AKM MOE magazine: A PMAG magazine chambered in 7.62×39mm Soviet designed to be used in Kalashnikov-series weapons (AK-47, AKM, AKMS, RPK, etc.).
• EMAG magazine: Export Magazine, a modified version of the PMAG designed to fit all NATO STANAG-type magazine wells (BAF SA-80, HK 416, M27 IAR, etc.).
• AFG/AFG2: An angled foregrip, designed by Chris Costa and Travis Haley of Magpul Dynamics as a "Theory Based Product," for RAS and RIS rail systems which allows an ergonomic and more natural hold for AR designs to increase accuracy and alleviate fatigue in the shooter's arm and wrist. Because it does not allow a "pistol-style grip" as defined in most jurisdictions, it is legal in many places where vertical foregrips may be classified as restricted features, such as California.
• B.A.D. (Battery Assist Device) Lever: a metal lever device that attaches to the standard AR-15 bolt catch and circles under the rifle's lower receiver and into the trigger guard, allowing the right handed operation of the bolt catch with the trigger finger.
• PMAG AR/M4 Gen M3: Improved PMAG made for use in AR-15 style rifles, as well as European-type STANAG 4179 magazine wells (HK416, M27 IAR, SA80, FN SCAR). Also has a redesigned bolt catch notch for increased bolt catch clearance, an over-travel stop on the spine to prevent over-insertion, and a new slimmer and easily disassembled floorplate. It is available in 10- (PMAG 10 AR/M4), 20- (PMAG 20 AR/M4), 30- (PMAG 30 AR/M4), and 40-round (PMAG 40 AR/M4) capacities.
• PMAG LR/SR GEN M3: The PMAG LR/SR GEN 3 is chambered in 7.62×51mm NATO for use in the KAC SR25 / M110 rifles. It is available in 10- (PMAG 10 LR/SR), 20- (PMAG 20 LR/SR), and 25-round (PMAG 25 LR/SR) capacities.
• MBUS: Magpul Back-Up Sight, low cost, polymer folding back up iron sights. Can be attached to any MIL-STD 1913 rail.
• MBUS Pro: Magpul Back-Up Sight Pro, folding, Melonite-finished all-steel back up sight. Dual aperture, windage adjustable rear and tool-less, elevation adjustable front.

Rifle stocks

• AR-15/M-16 stocks
  • M93 Stock â€" No longer manufactured under Magpul name, continued (with modifications) by former development partner Ergo as F93 Pro
  • CTR (Compact / Type Restricted) Stock
  • UBR (Utility / Battle Rifle) Stock, replaces the M93 stock. Shares the proprietary buffer tube design with the F93 and M93 stocks.
  • MOE (Magpul Original Equipment) Carbine Stock - An adjustable stock for the M4 Carbine.
  • ACS (Adaptable Carbine/Storage) Stock - An adjustable stock with 2 battery storage tubes and a storage compartment in the butt.
  • ACS-L (Adaptable Carbine/Storage - Light) Stock - A lighter and more slimline version of the ACS that lacks the battery storage tubes.
  • STR (Storage / Type Restricted) Stock
  • MOE Rifle Stock - A fixed stock for the AR-15 / M-16.
  • PRS (Precision Rifle / Sniper) Stock â€"Highly adjustable, available for the AR-15/M-16 and AR-10 systems.
• Stocks for other weapons
  • PRS2 â€" Highly adjustable, "Precision Rifle/Sniper" for the G3(PTR-91) and FN FAL.
  • SGA Stock â€" Adjustable stock for the Remington 870 and Mossberg M500 or M590 shotguns.
  • Hunter 700 Stock â€" An Adjustable stock compatible with all Remington 700 Short Action rifles, made with a cast aluminum bedding block surrounded by reinforced polymer.

Slings & Sling Mounts

• MS3: Multi Mission Sling, can convert between one point and two point sling depending on operator preference. Uses the Magpul Paraclip to attach to mounting plates.
• MS4: Multi Mission Sling, same as the MS3 but uses two heavy duty push button QD sling swivels rather than then Paraclip to attach to standard sling cups.
• ASAP: Ambidextrous Sling Attachment Point, allows a range of motion greater than 180 degrees, enables ambidextrous weapon manipulation for both left and right handed shooters. It replaces the standard AR-15/M16 carbine stock receiver end plate, minimises snagging and facilitates easy transition between shoulders. Compatible with the MS3 Paraclips.
• RSA: Rail Sling Attachment, allows a sling mount to be added to any MIL-STD 1913 Rail or RIS/RAS. Comes in a QD version too.

Standards

• M-LOK

Complete firearms

Magpul Masada

First introduced to the public at the 2007 SHOT Show, the Magpul Masada began as an evolutionary upgrade to the AR-15/M16 rifle, but the only parts that retain commonality with the standard AR-15 and M16 rifle are the barrel, fire control group (trigger pack), and front sight post.

In January 2008, the design of the Magpul Masada was licensed to Bushmaster Firearms International and the civilian version of the Masada is known as the Bushmaster ACR.

Magpul Massoud

A canceled prototype, the Magpul Massoud was a 7.62mm caliber semi-automatic rifle with the possibility of other calibers (.300WM, .338 Calibers). A prototype was test fired, and strongly resembles the Magpul Masada. It may use of some of the same parts as the ACR, including stocks and possibly forearms. Details of the operating system are closely guarded, however it is believed to be a short stroke gas piston operation, and use 7.62×51mm NATO 20-round variants of the Magpul PMag. It uses a Mil-std 1913 rail system with monolithic receiver. The name was chosen in honor of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the famous resistance leader of the Afghani Northern Alliance who was killed two days prior to the 9/11 attacks. A new prototype rifle based on the Massoud, the FOX-42 from Kinetic Research Group is in development.

Magpul PDR

The Magpul PDR is a conceptual 5.56mm caliber personal defense weapon which utilizes a bullpup design principle. The weapon uses STANAG magazines and fire the same type of ammunition as the M16. The purpose of the Magpul PDR is to better arm support personnel who would normally carry M9 pistols without adding any strain to current armed forces logistics with proprietary ammunition.

Magpul FMG-9

Magpul designed a folding 9mm submachine gun similar to the ARES FMG which was first publicly unveiled at the 2008 SHOT Show. The prototype unveiled by Magpul utilized a Glock pistol as the core of the weapon.

Firearms design consultation

Magpul aided significantly in the evolution of the KRISS Vector from a prototype to its finalized production design.

Political advocacy

Boulder Airlift

In response to Colorado House Bill 1224, Magpul started giving Colorado residents priority in ordering 20- and 30-round PMAGs. They stated: “In the battle for Colorado Freedoms, support for second amendment rights is being delivered by Magpul Industries Corporation. Fielded in the millions by US and its allies since 2007, the PMAG is the magazine of choice for those defending freedom and democracy around the world…Now, with the ability of Coloradans to purchase new standard capacity magazines in jeopardy, Magpul Industries is working to supply as many as possible to the good people of Colorado. Similar to the Berlin Airlift, the Boulder Airlift will bring much-needed gun supplies to freedom-loving residents trapped inside occupied territory.”

Farewell to Arms Freedom Festival

In response to Colorado's magazine ban, the group Free Colorado organized the "Farewell to Arms Freedom Festival" to raise funds for recall efforts against several Colorado politicians involved with its passage. Magpul donated 20,000 magazines to Free Colorado for the event. Of those, 1,500 were given away for free to the first 1,500 individuals over the age of 18 to arrive at the event. The event drew thousands of supporters.

Relocation

On 2 January 2014, Magpul announced that it was moving its production, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming and its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas.

References

External links

• Magpul Industries Corp. official website
• Magpul Core official website
• Magpul PTS official website
• Magpul Industries Online Product Catalog
• Magpul Forum at AR15.com

Learn more »

Harvard Business Publishing was founded in 1994 as a not-for-profit, wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University (distinct from Harvard University Press), with a focus on improving business management practices. The company consists of three market groups: Higher Education, Corporate Learning, and Harvard Business Review Group. It produces print and digital products including Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Review Press Books, and case briefs, blogs, events and seminars, as well as a variety of online courses such as Harvard ManageMentor and Leadership Direct.

External links

• Harvard Business Publishing
• Harvard Business School Publishing Course Listings

Learn more »

Below is a list of currently available tablet PCs grouped by their width, depth, height, screen size, and appropriate tablet case sizes.

The most popular presently available tablet computers are compared in the following table:

Learn more »

The iPod Nano (stylized and marketed as iPod nano) is a portable media player designed and marketed by Apple Inc. The first generation iPod Nano was introduced on September 7, 2005, as a replacement for the iPod Mini. It uses flash memory for storage. The iPod Nano has gone through several differing models, or generations, since its introduction.

Development

Development work on the design of the iPod Nano started only nine months before its launch date. The Nano was launched in two colors (black and white) with two available sizes: 2 GB (roughly 500 songs) and 4 GB (1000 songs). On February 7, 2006, Apple updated the lineup with the 1 GB model (240 songs). Apple also released some accessories, including armbands and silicone "tubes" designed to bring color to the Nano and protect it from scratches, as well as a combination lanyard-earphone accessory that hangs around the neck and avoids the problem of tangled earphone cords. The current models with Bluetooth headphones have a similar advantage.

History

1st generation

On September 7, 2005, Apple introduced the iPod Nano at a media event with Steve Jobs pointing to the small watch pocket in his jeans and asking, "Ever wonder what this pocket is for?" Advertising emphasized the iPod Nano's small size: 40 millimetres (1.6 in) wide, 90 millimetres (3.5 in) long, 6.9 millimetres (0.27 in) thick and weighing 42 grams (1.5 oz). The stated battery life was up to 14 hours, while the screen was 176×132 pixels, 38 millimetres (1.5 in) diagonal, displaying 65,536 colors (16-bit color). 1, 2, and 4 GB capacities were available. On November 11, 2011, Apple announced a recall on this model of iPod nano. The recall was issued due to a battery overheat issue. This recall applied to iPod nanos sold between September 2005 and December 2006. A nano submitted to Apple was replaced with a replacement 1st generation. However, shortly after the discontinuation of the 1st generation, Apple has replaced these nanos with newer generations, such as the 6th generatio n. This recall was discontinued in December of 2016.

2nd generation

On September 25, 2006, Apple updated the Nano line. The second-generation Nano featured scratch-resistant, anodized aluminum casing like the earlier Mini's design; the multiple color choices mirrored those of the Mini as well. However, unlike the second-generation Mini, the button labels were grey instead of matching the Nano's casing (except for the black Nano, which had a black click wheel). The second-generation Nano featured a 40% brighter, "more vibrant" display, a battery life upgrade (from 14 to 24 hours), and storages sizes doubled to 2, 4, and 8 GB models. The second generation also introduced gapless playback of audio files, along with a new search option.

The 2 GB model was available in silver only. The 4 GB was initially available in green, blue, silver, or pink, and the 8 GB model was initially only available in black - red was later added for 4 and 8 GB models. Apple claimed that the second generation iPod Nano's packaging was "32% lighter with 52% less volume than the first generation", thereby reducing environmental impact and shipping costs.

On October 13, 2006, Apple announced a special edition iPod Nano; Product Red, with a red exterior and 4 GB of storage. For each red iPod Nano sold in the United States, Apple donates US$10 to the Product Red initiative, while retaining the regular price. On November 3, 2006, Apple introduced a red 8 GB model, due to "outstanding customer demand", again retaining the same price point of the equivalent black model.

3rd generation

Apple updated the Nano again on September 5, 2007. It also is the most like the iPod Classic. The third-generation Nano featured a 2-inch (51 mm) QVGA (320 x 240) screen and a shorter, wider, heavier design, with new colors. New features included browsing via Cover Flow, a new user interface, video playback, and support for new iPod Games. Users had to repurchase games bought a month before the debut of the new iPod as they were not supported. The Nano was announced in a 4 GB version coming in silver and an 8 GB version coming in silver, turquoise, mint green, black, and Product Red. The battery lasted for approx. 24 hours on audio playback and approx. 5 hours on video playback. On January 22, 2008, Apple released a pink version of the 8 GB iPod Nano.

Combining elements from previous generations of the iPod Nano, the third-generation Nano had an aluminum front plate and a stainless steel back plate. The Nano also sported a new Minimalistic hold switch, similar to the iPod Shuffle's power switch, which had been moved to the bottom of the player. The 2-inch (51 mm) screen had the smallest dot pitch of any Apple product, having the same pixel count as the 2.5-inch (64 mm) display of the iPod Classic.

On October 6, 2007, Apple released a firmware update (1.0.2) via iTunes that was said to improve Cover Flow and yield faster menu navigation. The update was also released for the iPod Classic. On November 28, 2007, Apple released another firmware update (1.0.3) via iTunes, which included unspecified bugfixes. January 15, 2008 saw the release of version 1.1, which added support for iTunes movie rentals, music song lyrics support and included more unspecified bugfixes. Apple released update version 1.1.2 in May 2008 and version 1.1.3 in July 2008 with even more bug fixes.

4th generation

At the Apple Let's Rock Event on September 9, 2008, the iPod Nano Fourth Generation was officially announced. It returned to the narrow form factor of the 1st and 2nd Generation model, while retaining and rotating the 51-millimetre (2.0 in) screen from the 3rd gen model. It was also thinner than the first, second, and third generation Nano, measuring 90.7 millimetres (3.57 in) tall by 38.7 millimetres (1.52 in) wide by 6.2 millimetres (0.24 in) thick, and weighing 36.8 grams (1.30 oz). It had a curved aluminum shell and glass screen (the glass screen being held in place with nothing but the shell). Apple claimed the battery would last 24 hours of music playback, and only 4 hours of video playback, compared to the 5 hours of the previous generation.

The six previous colors (silver, black, mint, turquoise, berry red, and rose pink) were replaced by silver, black, purple, light blue, green, yellow, orange, red, and pink, for a total of nine, although the Product Red color was only available directly from Apple (website and retail stores). Apple marketed the new colors as "Nano-chromatic". Also added was an accelerometer which allows the Nano to shuffle songs by shaking it, the option between portrait and landscape display modes by tilting the iPod left or right, and access to Cover Flow when tilted sideways. Videos, however, could only be played in landscape mode. The user interface was also refreshed, adding a more stylized look in keeping with the new hardware design. It included a new voice recording feature which started automatically when an Apple compatible microphone is plugged in. It also included the new "Genius" feature, introduced by Apple the same day. The Genius feature automatically creates playlists based on a se lected song using an algorithm built by Apple.

It was additionally touted as "the most environmentally friendly iPod Apple has ever made", containing arsenic-free glass and a BFR-, mercury-, and PVC-free design. It was also claimed to be highly recyclable. The iPod Nano fourth-generation was shipped in cases similar to the second-generation ones with the clear view in the front, and is marketed in three models: 4 GB (limited production to Europe only) and 8 GB and 16 GB. Limited quantities of an unannounced 4 GB model surfaced in various markets. Also, the iPod Quiz game was dropped and replaced with a Maze game which makes use of the iPod's accelerometer similarly to such games on the iPhone and iPod Touch.

The fourth generation dropped support for charging via FireWire. "This change means that any dock accessories that use the dock connector's FireWire pins to send powerâ€"many older speakers and car chargers, for exampleâ€"will not charge the fourth-generation iPod Nano."

5th generation

At Apple's September 9, 2009 event, a fifth generation iPod Nano was unveiled with reduced prices on the larger model (at the time of release, the 8GB was priced at $149 and the 16GB at $179), a larger, 56.3 millimetres (2.22 in) diagonal screen (up from 50.8 millimetres (2.00 in) in third and fourth generation iPod Nanos), which was also wider, integrated video camera with 16 special effects, microphone, FM Radio with iTunes tagging (via RDS) multiple radio regions including Americas, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Japan.

As well as continuing to support picture viewing and video playback, it also included Live Pause, a built-in pedometer, Nike+iPod Support and a speaker. This model also had the Genius Mix feature installed.

The headphone jack and dock connector swapped locations so that the headphone jack was to the left of the dock connector. Therefore, the fifth generation iPod Nano used a different Apple Universal Dock insert than the fourth generation.

The fifth generation iPod Nano had nine finishes: Silver, Black, Purple, Blue, Yellow, Orange, Product Red, Green and Pink. All have a glossier, shinier finish than the fourth generation. Just like the fourth-generation iPod Nano, Product Red and the yellow Nano were only available on the Apple Online Store and Apple Retail Store.

This generation was discontinued on September 1, 2010.

6th generation

At a media event on September 1, 2010, Apple announced the sixth generation iPod Nano, which, among many new features, was designed around a high resolution square touch-screen.

The device featured a small 1.55 inch multi-touch screen with a lower resolution of 240×240 pixels but a higher pixel density of 220 pixels per inch, as opposed to the larger 2.2 inch screen on the fifth-generation iPod Nano. The device had a 0.39 watt-hour battery rated at 3.7 volts, giving a capacity of 105 mAh, and specified to give 24 hours of music playback on a single full charge. The device took about three hours for one full charge. The device retained the same 30-pin dock connector as previous generations. This Nano lost the previous generation's video camera, built-in voice recorder (although plugging in headphones with a built in microphone revealed a Voice Memos app) and built-in speaker, and games. It also lost support for video playback, but music videos and video podcasts (vodcasts) could be synced onto the device, and the audio from them would play on the device, with a single key-frame shown on the screen. It still included the Nike+iPod fitness option as well as an FM radio tuner. It had a black on white screen contrast option and other accessibility options. The 6th generation iPod Nano had the same price point as the 5th generation device.

A firmware update (version 1.1) for the Nano was released on February 28, 2011. The update added the ability to change songs or pause with a double click of the sleep/wake button. It also added the ability to turn the device off by holding the sleep/wake button. The user interface was also enhanced. On October 4, 2011, the iPod Nano 1.2 update was unveiled at the Apple "Let's Talk iPhone" event at the Town Hall, 4 Infinite Loop. This update added the option to increase or decrease the size of the home buttons for easier use. The update also added a better fitness app, which had a better pedometer split into walking and running style. The update also included 16 new clock faces, which included designs like a Nixie tube clock face or an old-style clock face, and Disney-licensed designs, such as Mickey Mouse and Kermit the Frog, bringing to a total of 18 clock faces. Three more background images were also added.

Although not specifically designed as one, some accessory makers produced watchbands for the 6th generation Nano, allowing it to be worn like a watch. In September 2013, TUAW compared the iPod Nano to the Samsung Galaxy Gear, and considered the three-year-old model to be a "better, cheaper smartwatch" than the Galaxy Gear because of its more complete functionality in comparison, and its inclusion of a headphone jack.

7th generation

Apple announced the seventh generation iPod Nano on September 12, 2012. The (maximum) internal storage capacity has not been increased compared with the previous model but only a single, 16GB version of the seventh generation iPod Nano was announced at the product launch. It has been described as the "thinnest iPod Nano yet", 38% thinner (5.4 mm) than the Nano it replaces (8.78 mm), and adds the ability to use Bluetooth 4.0 wireless headsets, speakers and other devices (such as heart-rate monitors). It still included the Nike+iPod fitness option as well as an FM radio tuner which works when connected to headphones or a stereo jack. On 15 July 2015, Apple refreshed the iPod Nano, offering only 5 more subdued colours (gold, silver, blue, pink and space grey) compared to the original 7 jewel tones, in addition to the (Product) Red model.

Specifications

Supported audio formats

Lossy:

• AAC (8 to 320 kbit/s)
  • Protected AAC (from the iTunes Store)
• MP3 (8 to 320 Kib/s, including variable bitrate files)
• Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4)

Lossless/original PCM:

• Apple Lossless
• AIFF
• WAV

Other container:

• MP4

Reception

The initial consumer response to the iPod Nano was overwhelmingly positive and sales were heavy. The Nano sold its first million units in 17 days, helping Apple Inc. to a record billion-dollar profit in 2005.

Apple's release of the iPod Nano as a replacement for the iPod Mini was viewed by many as a risky move. Steve Jobs argued that the iPod Nano was a necessary risk since competitors were beginning to catch up to the iPod Mini in terms of design and features, and believed the iPod Nano would prove to be even more popular and successful than the iPod Mini.

Within days of the Nano's release, some users reported damage to the Nano, suggesting that the LCD screen had become so scratched that it was unreadable, even when the backlight was on. Many reported fine scratches on Nanos, caused by microfiber cloths. Other owners reported that their Nano's screen cracked without use of excessive force. On September 27, 2005, Apple confirmed that a small percentage ("less than 1/10 of 1 percent") of iPod Nanos shipped with a faulty screen and agreed to replace any that had cracked screens, but denied the iPod Nano was more susceptible to scratching than prior iPods. Apple started shipping iPod Nanos with a protective sleeve to protect them from scratches. In October 2005 a class action lawsuit was filed against Apple, with the plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for the device, legal fees, and "unlawful or illegal profits" from sales of the iPod Nano. Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed that the devices "scratch excessively during normal usage, rend ering the screen on the Nanos unreadable, and violating state consumer protection statutes". Similar lawsuits were later filed in Mexico and the United Kingdom. In early 2009, Apple was in the process of settling a court case over the scratched iPod Nano screens. It was suggested that Apple should set aside $22 million to refund users. At the time, it required a Judge's sign-off on the terms by April 28, 2009. Some commentators such as BusinessWeek's Arik Hesseldahl have criticized the lawsuits. Hesseldahl dismissed them as "stupid" and suggested that they benefitted "no one but the trial lawyers," but also suggested that Apple could have avoided litigation by offering "full refunds on unwanted Nanos" instead of charging a re-stocking fee and lengthening the return period from 14 days (when purchased through Apple retail or online) to 30 or 60 days.

Incidents

In Australia, an iPod Nano caught fire while being charged on a PC. Since the limited warranty was expired, the consumer was not able to get a replacement right away.

In another incident, a man's iPod Nano set his pants on fire while he was working at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Apple Inc., refused to release a statement regarding this issue.

In addition, an iPod Nano sparked in Japan in January while it was recharging. Although no one was injured during the incident, Apple Inc. investigated the incident. It was reported on August 19, 2008 that 17 incidents of abnormal overheating with first generation iPod Nano units while recharging had been reported in Japan, including cases in which tatami mats had been charred. On August 10, 2010, Apple Japan released a statement saying that it would replace any iPod Nanos that overheated.

Since 2010, users have been reporting the 6th generation iPod Nano's sleep/wake button remains stuck after months of use, making it impossible to activate the device without the help of a computer or a dock accessory. According to a technical inspection, the device uses double-sided tape to hold the button in place, indicating a possible design fault.

On November 11, 2011, Apple announced the iPod Nano (1st generation) Replacement Program, intended to address concerns over overheating batteries. Customers with affected devices can fill out a claim form to confirm eligibility for replacement. Defective devices will be replaced within six weeks and will carry 90-day warranties. Customers who have personalized iPod Nano devices will not be able to receive personalization on their replacement devices. During the replacement process, there have been several reports of users receiving an iPod Nano 6th generation as replacement instead of the expected 1st generation device that users sent in during the recall. Because using the iPod nano 6th generation with a Mac computer requires iTunes 10 or higher, which in turn requires Mac OS X Leopard system software, Apple will upgrade the system software of participants running earlier versions of OS X, on request but this leaves users that do not have access to iTunes without a working device (because Apple changed the hashing of the music database which prevented the 6th generation iPod Nano from being used with open source software via libgpod).

Timeline of compact iPod models

References

External links

• iPod Nano â€" official site on Apple Inc.

Learn more »

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), was an important income tax case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held as follows:

• Congress, in enacting income taxation statutes that comprehend "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever," intended to tax all gain except that which was specifically exempted.
• Income is not limited to "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

• Although the Court used this characterization in Eisner v. Macomber, it "was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions."

• Instead, income is realized whenever there are "instances of [1] undeniable accessions to wealth, [2] clearly realized, and [3] over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

• Under this definition, punitive damages qualify as "income" -- even though they are not derived from capital or from labor.

Facts

Two factually distinct cases were consolidated because they presented the same issue.

• In one case, the defendant Glenshaw Glass Company had won an award of punitive damages in an antitrust lawsuit. The defendant did not declare this award as income or pay taxes on it, claiming that it was not subject to taxation. The Internal Revenue Service brought suit to collect the tax.
• In another case, William Goldman Theatres, Inc. neglected to report punitive damages as income. Again, the Internal Revenue Service sued to collect the tax.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that the award of treble damages was taxable income.

In the opinion, Warren pointed out that the language of section 22(a) (the predecessor of current section 61(a)) was employed by Congress in order utilize "the full measure of its taxing power," as provided for under the Sixteenth Amendment. Essentially, Congress, in enacting section 22(a), intended to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.

The Court then held that the amounts received by the taxpayers in this case were "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

This three-part "test" for determining income is broader than the earlier test employed by the Court in Eisner v. Macomber, and is to this day the preferred test for identifying gross income.

Learn more »