Thibodaux, LA, United States
Thibodaux, LA, United States

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | February 28, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

LISLE, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Molex has earned recognition as a Partner-level supplier for 2016 in the John Deere Achieving Excellence Program. The Partner-level status is Deere & Company’s highest supplier rating and is reserved for suppliers who go above and beyond performance standards, reaching world-class levels, and have a measurable effect on customer satisfaction. The electronic components and solutions provider was selected for the honor in recognition of its dedication to providing products and service of outstanding quality as well as its commitment to continuous improvement. Company employees accepted the recognition at the John Deere Supplier Conference on January 11 in Moline, IL. Molex participates in the John Deere Achieving Excellence (AE) program at the John Deere Electronic Solutions (JDES) division in Fargo, ND. “Molex is proud to be recognized by Deere & Company for our efforts to maintain a successful business relationship and contribute to the superior level of quality of its products and services,” said Bruce Lindahl, worldwide account manager, Molex. “The Achieving Excellence Program provides an outstanding framework for teamwork and communication as we pursue a shared vision and commitment to continuous improvement.” Suppliers who participate in the Achieving Excellence program are evaluated annually in several key performance categories, including quality, cost management, delivery, technical support and wavelength, which is a measure of a supplier’s initiative to support the business relationship. John Deere Supply Management created the program in 1991 to provide a supplier evaluation and feedback process that promotes continuous improvement. Molex brings together innovation and technology to deliver electronic solutions to customers worldwide. With a presence in more than 40 countries, Molex offers a full suite of solutions and services for many markets, including data communications, consumer electronics, medical, industrial, automotive, and commercial vehicle. For more information, please visit www.molex.com. Molex is a registered trademark of Molex, LLC in the United States of America and may be registered in other jurisdictions.


News Article | February 21, 2017
Site: motherboard.vice.com

I recently read The End of Ownership, a new book about how companies are using contract law, Digital Rights Management, and End User License Agreements to strip away the very concept of "owning" the things we buy. When our Kindle books mysteriously disappear overnight, or we're prevented from installing unauthorized software on an iPhone, we can surmise that we don't really own the things we've bought. But the internet of things has created new and interesting ways for tech manufacturers to assert ownership not just of MP3s, ebooks, and software, but of the physical goods we have in our homes, our garages, and even inside out bodies. After you read the excerpt, check out our podcast with the authors. - Jason Koebler Excerpted from The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy by Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz published by The MIT Press. All rights reserved. Cars, refrigerators, televisions, Barbie dolls. When people buy these everyday objects, they rarely give much thought to whether or not they own them. We pay for them, so we think of them as our property. And historically, with the exception of the occasional lease or rental, we owned our personal possessions. They were ours to use as we saw fit. They were free to be shared, resold, modified, or repaired. That expectation is a deeply held one. When manufacturers tried to leverage the DMCA to control how we used our printers and garage door openers, a big reason courts pushed back was that the effort was so unexpected, so out of step with our understanding of our relationship to the things we buy. But in the decade or so that followed those first bumbling attempts, we've witnessed a subtler and more effective strategy for convincing people to cede control over everyday purchases. It relies less—or at least less obviously—on DRM and the threat of DMCA liability, and more on the appeal of new product features, and in particular those found in the smart devices that make up the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). Radio Motherboard is also available on iTunes and all podcast apps. Your car is a computer with wheels; a plane is a computer with wings; your watch, your child's toys, even your pacemaker are all computers at their core. And as computers, they are susceptible to the same sort of external limitations and controls we've witnessed with previous generations of digital goods. Even if we resist it, we're accustomed to software telling us whether we can watch a digital movie. But what happens when computer code dictates when your light bulbs have to be replaced? Or how fast you can drive? Or whether you can fly your drone in a particular neighborhood? Or what brand of cat litter you can use? What are the social consequences of a smart mattress that collects and analyzes heart rate and breathing data, monitors your movements, and provides you a nightly summary? That's what Samsung's Sleepsense device promises. Samsung even suggests you track your loved ones by "simply put[ting] the sensor under their mattress ... to receive an analysis of the quality of their sleep via email." What could possibly go wrong? This walled-garden approach was a dramatic departure from the approach of general-purpose computers, which allowed third-party applications and considerable freedom for user modification With so many networked devices in their homes, consumers are relying on home automation hubs—devices that allow them to control their home security systems, lights, garage door openers, and entertainment systems from any place with an Internet connection. The maker of one such device, Revolv, was acquired by Google-owned IoT company Nest in 2014. The Revolv hub sold for $300 and touted a "lifetime subscription" for updates and new features. But in April of 2016, Nest announced it would no longer support the Revolv. What's more, Nest planned to exercise its software-enabled remote control over the devices to render them entirely inoperable. After a May 15 software update, it explained, "The Revolv app won't open and the hub won't work." Alphabet, Google's parent company, which has its sights set on the self-driving car and medical device markets, decided it was within its rights to reduce a device that consumers bought to nothing more than an overpriced paperweight. Consider that before you buy a Google car. Let's look at a small sampling of IoT devices across a wide range of sectors and consider their consequences for ownership and consumer welfare more broadly. In many cases, these technologies offer real benefits. Yet the core cultural and legal shifts they represent strike a blow against ownership in the digital economy. Jailbreaking Is Not a Crime The exact origin of the Internet of Things is difficult to pinpoint, but one significant moment in its early history was the introduction of the iPhone on January 9, 2007. Steve Jobs told the assembled crowd, "Today, Apple is going to reinvent the phone." He proceeded to wow them with "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device" combined in a single product. But like nearly every Apple product, the user experience was carefully choreographed and tightly controlled. iPhone users could only run Apple's iOS. They could only configure the settings Apple allowed them to access. They could only use Apple-approved mobile carriers. And they could only run the applications Apple provided. And later, once Apple launched its App Store, they could only install software that Apple approved—on the basis of opaque and inconsistent standards. What you could do with this remarkably powerful pocket computer depended entirely on what Apple let you do. This walled-garden approach was a dramatic departure from the approach of general-purpose computers, including Macs, which allowed third-party applications and considerable freedom for user modification. In some ways, Apple's approach to the iPhone was more in line with an earlier phone maker, AT&T. During its decades-long reign as a telecommunications monopolist, AT&T—née Bell Telephone—used a number of strategies to maintain strict control over telephones. As the holder of Alexander Graham Bell's patents, AT&T had total control over the design, production, and distribution of phones. And even after those patents expired, it extended that control by leasing phones rather than selling them, making certain that users didn't acquire property rights in their devices. They also used contractual provisions and legal threats to stamp out innovation, no matter how innocuous. In the 1940s, AT&T exercised this power by targeting the Hush-a-phone, a small non-electronic accessory that attached over a telephone receiver to increase privacy and cut down on noise. AT&T forbade its use, and it took nearly a decade of legal battles before the DC Circuit rejected that restriction as an "unwarranted interference with the telephone subscriber's right reasonably to use his telephone in ways which are privately beneficial without becoming publicly detrimental." This case, along with the FCC's subsequent Carterphone decision, which permitted the attachment of wireless technology to AT&T's phones, paved the way for competition and individual ownership of landline phones. In some ways, Apple's control over the iPhone is a throwback to these bad old days. But it's one that many consumers happily accepted in exchange for the convenience of integrating all of their online activities into a single device. But not everyone was willing to go along quietly. Apple's restrictions sparked a movement to "jailbreak" iPhones in order to regain some semblance of ownership. "Jailbreaking" refers to the act of eliminating software restrictions and DRM that limit how phone owners can use their devices. With a jailbroken iPhone, you can install any software you choose, replace Apple's operating system with one you prefer, and customize the look and feel of your phone. Jailbreaking is related to, but distinct from, unlocking a mobile phone—the process of removing software locks that prevent you from switching wireless carriers—from AT&T to T-Mobile, for example. Jailbreaking is not a new practice. Similar homebrew communities formed around other devices long before the iPhone launched, from Xbox hacks to do-it-yourself DVRs. But nothing galvanized that community more than the thought of turning Apple's powerful and ubiquitous product into an open platform. The first iPhone jailbreak was announced on July 10, 2007, just eleven days after the device launched. With each inevitable Apple software update, the jailbreaking community would free that new version within weeks, if not days. Monsanto claimed its seeds were licensed for a single season, not sold. Although it didn't file suit, Apple insisted that jailbreaking was illegal. In 2009, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a petition with the U.S. Copyright Office requesting formal permission for iPhone owners to jailbreak their devices without fearing anti-circumvention liability. This provoked Apple to explain precisely why jailbreaking should be banned. Despite referring to consumers as "iPhone owners" throughout its filing, Apple asserted that "iPhone users are licensees, not owners, of the copies of iPhone operating software." In other words, when you buy an iPhone, all you own is the physical hardware. The software stored on it that make it work and account for much of its value still belong to Apple. While perhaps shocking to those with an iPhone in their pocket, this stance was a logical conclusion for Apple, a company with one foot in the software industry and a commitment to controlling the user experience that bordered on zealotry. And because Apple has consistently proven its nearly unrivaled skill as a designer of end user experiences, it succeeded in selling us DRM in the guise of a smart device. It made us believe that a bug was a feature. Consumers recoiled at the idea of these sorts of restrictions when Chamberlain and Lexmark tried to sneak them into our garage door openers and laser printers, but when Jobs offered us the same vision, we lined up to give Apple our money. Tired of losing revenue to industrious farmers who repaired their own tractors or bargain hunters who took their equipment to an independent repair shop, John Deere decided to force their customers to have their equipment serviced by authorized John Deere dealers Eventually, the Copyright Office ruled in favor of the right to jailbreak phones. However, in doing so, it sidestepped the contentious issue of ownership and focused on jailbreaking as a fair use of Apple's copyrighted iOS. And in 2014, an otherwise hopelessly gridlocked Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act in response to a petition signed by over 100,000 Americans. Although each of these measures suggests both that people still care deeply about owning their devices and that government can be responsive to those concerns, they are temporary fixes. Both the Copyright Office exemptions and the unlocking legislation expire after three years. Apple's battle for ownership of our phones signaled the beginning of a much broader shift. Every day, we learn of yet another object that will come with embedded software, location detection sensors, and network connections that limit consumer control and surreptitiously communicate back to its corporate mother ship. And while companies like Apple are slowly making their devices more open and user-configurable as a result of public pressure and competitive threats from open-source mobile operating systems such as Android, whole other areas of our lives are becoming constrained and preconfigured for us, often without our knowledge. Old MacDonald Licensed a Farm Farmers have enough to worry about. Banks are coming to foreclose on their land. Locusts are eating their crops. Immigration policy is complicating their hiring practices. And corporate agri-business long ago redefined the economics of their way of life. On top of all of this, today's farmers have to contend with intellectual property. It began with seeds. For years, Monsanto successfully sold Roundup, an herbicide that helped farmers control weeds and other unwanted vegetation. But Roundup also often damaged the crops themselves, so Monsanto began manufacturing crops resistant to Roundup. It patented so-called Roundup Ready soybeans and later added alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, and sugar beets to the list of Roundup-resistant products. Initially welcomed by many farmers, some were troubled by Monsanto's claim that its seeds were licensed for a single season, not sold. This meant that no matter how many seeds you saved, they couldn't be replanted the following year, a centuries-old farming practice. Instead, you had to buy new seeds from Monsanto or else contend with pests and less-effective pesticides. Seed patents were just the beginning of the IP frustrations facing farmers. Software has also found its way onto the farm. The iconic John Deere tractor now contains no less than eight control units—hardware and software components that regulate various functions, ranging from running the engine to adjusting the armrest to operating the hitch. When tractors were purely mechanical, farmers could easily maintain, repair, and modify their own equipment as needed. But now, software stands in their way. That barrier is no accident. Tired of losing revenue to industrious farmers who repaired their own tractors or bargain hunters who took their equipment to an independent repair shop, John Deere decided to force their customers to have their equipment serviced by authorized John Deere dealers. By interposing a software layer between farmers and their tractors, John Deere created a practical hurdle. And by wrapping its software controls in DRM, it created a legal one. A quick glance at the John Deere owner's manual gives you a good indication of the result. Almost any problem—from high coolant temperature to a parking brake that's not working or a seat that's too firm—ends the same way, with a trip to the John Deere dealer. Keurig's machines would only accept pods embedded with a code that verified your coffee came from a licensed supplier Fed up with John Deere's tactics, a group of farmers petitioned the Copyright Office in February of 2015 for a temporary DMCA exemption, like the one granted to smartphone jailbreakers, that would give them clear legal authority to repair, upgrade, and modify their tractors. John Deere responded with adamant opposition, insisting that tractor owners had no right to look under the digital hood, even if the fix was quick and technically simple. Its argument hinged on ownership. John Deere claimed it owns the software, and not just as an abstract matter of copyright law. It owns the copies of its code embedded in the tractors it sells to farmers, code that is essential to the functioning of the equipment. Farmers, in John Deere's words, merely had "an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle." That means you get to keep driving the tractor you bought from John Deere for tens of thousands of dollars unless and until it tells you otherwise. John Deere's attitude toward ownership has a number of important implications that typify the core risks presented by the Internet of Things. Most obviously, by denying farmers the right to repair—a right entrenched enough that even patent protection can't disturb it—John Deere has effectively raised the price of its products for farmers. It has also done serious harm to the market for repair services, which are less competitive since farmers have no real choice of mechanics. Free as in Coffee Those in the free software movement are fond of distinguishing between two ways in which we use the word "free." "Free as in beer" refers to price. "Free as in speech" refers to liberty, the freedom you have to use a thing as you choose. Until recently, you could be confident that if you overheard someone talking about free coffee, it meant Starbucks was running a promotion. But thanks to Keurig, the maker of the popular K-Cup brewing system, conversations about coffee now have to account for questions of liberty as well. The Keurig saga began in 2012, when several of the coffee company's key patents expired. Those patents covered its pod-based brewing system. Users placed single-serving portions of coffee or other brewed beverages in the machine, hit a button, and got a consistent drink each time. Without patent protection, Keurig had to contend with competition. As it turned out, Keurig wasn't a fan. Rival companies started producing compatible pods and undercutting Keurig's prices. In response, Keurig released new machines featuring "Keurig 2.0 Brewing Technology which reads each lid to deliver on the promise of excellent quality beverages." Marketing speak aside, what that meant was that Keurig's machines would only accept pods embedded with a code that verified your coffee came from a licensed supplier. And it also killed off its generic pod that let you supply your own coffee grounds. If you tried to brew rogue coffee, your Keurig machine greeted you with this cheerful message: The public reaction was swift and vicious. Angry Facebook posts and irate Amazon reviews flooded the Internet. As Brian Barrett wrote, "A coffee maker limiting your choice of grind seems as out of place as a frying pan dictating your eggs." It didn't take long for competitors to capitalize on this outrage by cracking the Keurig DRM. Coffee drinkers even figured out how to defeat it with a single piece of tape. Soon Keurig was persuaded to reverse course, at least in part. It appears to be sticking to its guns when it comes to blocking pods from competitors, but it announced plans to reintroduce the My K-Cup product that allowed coffee drinkers to fill their own pods. Nonetheless, the company and its investors have paid a price for its overreach. Keurig stock dropped by 10 percent in the wake of the DRM controversy. ToyTalk claims to own anything you, your child, or even their friends say to Barbie The Keurig example shows that people still care deeply about owning and controlling their devices and that they have the potential to make their voices heard in the marketplace. But it also cautions that market pressure is often only partly effective in protecting consumer interests. Open the Pod Bay Doors, Barbie At this point, it should come as no surprise that the Internet of Things threatens our sense of control over the devices we purchase. However, those threats aren't limited to intellectual property and DRM; they also include battles for control over information about our behavior and our inner lives. One troubling example is the Wi-Fi-enabled Hello Barbie doll from Mattel. This IoT Barbie looks like many of her predecessors but offers a unique feature. She can engage in conversation with a child and learn about them in the process. Barbie does this by recording her conversations and transmitting them via network connections to ToyTalk, a third-party cloud-based speech recognition service. ToyTalk then uses software and data analytics to analyze those conversations and deliver personalized responses. It's an impressive trick, but the implications for our sense of ownership are quite shocking. For many children, talking to toy dolls is a way to share their unfiltered thoughts, dreams, and fears in a safe, private environment. But according to the terms of the Hello Barbie EULA, ToyTalk and its unnamed partners have wide latitude to make use of information about your child's conversations in ways that few parents would anticipate: All information, materials and content ... is owned by ToyTalk or is used with permission. ... You agree that ToyTalk and its licensors and contractors may use, transcribe and store. ... Recordings and any speech data contained therein, including your voice and likeness as may be captured therein, to provide and maintain the ToyTalk App, to develop, tune, test, enhance or improve speech recognition technology and artificial intelligence algorithms, to develop acoustic and language models and for other research and development purposes. ... By using any Service, you consent to ToyTalk's collection, use and/or disclosure of your personal information as described in this Policy. By allowing other people to use the Service via your account, you are confirming that you have the right to consent on their behalf to ToyTalk's collection, use and disclosure of their personal information as described below. In other words, ToyTalk claims to own anything you, your child, or even their friends say to Barbie. Conversations with the doll are corporate property. The safety and privacy of a child's bedroom is compromised by the collection, sharing, and commercial use of those conversations. And while these services may offer benefits, they come with significant new risks. Shortly after the IoT-enabled Barbie shipped, security vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to intercept a child's conversations with the doll were revealed. And those worries aren't just hypothetical. Around the same time, VTech—maker of the children's smartwatch Kidizoom and InnoTab mobile device—disclosed that more than six million children had their personal information, including photos and chat messages, stolen from VTech's servers. Hello Barbie is just the latest example of this trend of networked appliances. Samsung shipped a SmartTV with a default listening mode—and accompanying privacy policy—intended to continuously eavesdrop on viewers and send audio back via the cloud for analysis. In a pitch to investors, Vizio recently touted the fact that its smart televisions will be able to detect any content that users watch, regardless of the source, and use that information to customize advertising and programming. The June smart oven features cameras and software that can recognize the food you cook. Google's Nest thermostat takes a similar approach to learning about you. Amazon's Echo, Apple's Siri, Microsoft's Cortana, and Google Now go a step further by encouraging us to interact with disembodied soothing, friendly, and—by default—female voices. Science tells us that we engage more readily with technology that mimics human interaction. A recent study showed that gamblers risk more on slot machines with humanlike features. Of course, such services have the potential to offer real benefits. But such a service relationship comes not only with divided loyalties but also diminished autonomy. It is very different from owning an object completely and suggests we should be mindful of exactly who controls our relationship with any object we purchase. A person's home may be their castle, but their appliances may belong to someone else. Our Bodies, Our Servers As if our connection to the Internet of Things wasn't intimate enough, network-enabled and software-dependent devices are now inside our bodies. When open source advocate Karen Sandler found out at age thirty-one that she could die suddenly from a heart condition, she did what most of us would do. She went to the doctor to fix it. In her case, that meant implanting a pacemaker-defibrillator in her chest to give her heart a jolt in the event it gave out. The device—about the size of an avocado—was literally a life-saving invention. But because it ran proprietary software, Sandler had no way to tell how it worked or how likely it was to fail. As she explained in an interview, "A statistic came out recently that 25 percent of all medical device recalls in the last few years have been due to software failure. When you read these statistics it becomes very personal." It turns out that Sandler's questions about her pacemaker weren't so easy to answer. Much like Apple and its iPhone, pacemaker manufacturers won't let patients look inside or test the devices they purchase. Nor are you allowed to read the data from your own device while you are at home or on the road—even in the midst of a medical emergency. Instead, you can only access your health data from manufacturer-approved sources. And until recently, you couldn't even test your device to make sure it is functioning correctly or was running the latest software or security update. The reason for such restrictions? According to a filing with the Copyright Office, the Advanced Medical Technology Association "believe[s] that patients have an inherent right to access their own medical data, however, this in and of itself does not necessitate bypass of any intellectual property protections." In other words, even if you own the physical parts of the pacemaker, the manufacturer's copyright trumps any claim you might have to see how it works or what data it collects on you—even when it is implanted inside your body. Fitbit's privacy policy does promise to remove personally identifiable information whenever it shares your records with third parties, it reserves the right to keep everything else indefinitely, even after you delete your account Dana Lewis proved what patients can do when they own their devices and control their care. Lewis is a diabetic living in Seattle who relies on a glucose monitor and a handheld wireless device to alert her when her blood sugar is too high or low. Yet Lewis often wasn't able to hear the alarm, especially when she was sleeping. So she and her partner, Scott Leibrand, built a new program that displayed blood sugar levels with new louder alarms and a snooze button. They even added the ability to send the information to other mobile devices, such as Leibrand's Pebble watch. Next they turned to Lewis's insulin regime. Traditionally diabetics control their insulin levels manually. But Lewis and Leibrand began experimenting with the data to devise an algorithm specific to Lewis's needs—something that would automate and adapt based on the data her device was sending out. It could predict her insulin needs thirty, sixty, and even ninety minutes in the future. Eventually they hope to produce an artificial pancreas that will essentially automate this process. No IP law, and certainly not one designed to stop infringers from sharing movies online, should stand in the way of patients adapting equipment they own to keep them alive. These concerns are not limited to those of us with life-threatening conditions. When you buy a Fitbit wearable tracker, its Terms of Sale specifically state that "to the extent the Products contain or consist of software in any form ... such Software is licensed to you, not sold[.] Terms such as 'sell' and 'purchase,' as used in these Terms, apply only to the extent the Products consist of items other than Software." Again all you own is the shell and the components. Everything digital—including physical storage media—belongs to Fitbit. While Fitbit's privacy policy does promise to remove personally identifiable information whenever it shares your records with third parties, it reserves the right to keep everything else indefinitely, even after you delete your account. Every move you make, every step you take, Fitbit will be tracking you. And as Kate Crawford wrote, because the type of information collected by these devices is so personal, and so intimate, it is almost as if the device itself becomes a more authoritative source about us than we are. Network security has also become an issue for medical devices. From insulin pumps to cochlear implants and powered prosthetic joints, more and more medical devices rely on transmitting medical data to providers through Wi-Fi and Bluetooth protocols. These connections have already opened the door to numerous security issues. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney claims to have switched off the wireless functionality on his own pacemaker to prevent terrorists from hacking it. Fortunately, much like with vehicle security testing, the Copyright Office granted an exemption for testing exterior medical devices and passively testing those that are implanted in ways that don't affect functionality. The ability to innovate and improve these devices, however, remains highly contested. Karen Sandler's dream of an open source pacemaker may inspire us, but it also presents complications. Open source could allow patients to examine, test, and improve devices in ways far more flexible and permissive than the current proprietary model, but they don't give us autonomy in quite the same way as analog ownership. Instead they offer a future with different, more user-friendly restrictions to navigate. Focusing on medical devices, the argument for individual ownership and control resonates more viscerally. For the rest of the stuff we buy, the stakes may be lower, but the arguments are the same. If you don't own your devices, you can't repair or customize them. You can't innovate with them. And in the end, the products you buy may end up using you more than you use them.


News Article | February 23, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

HIPOWER SYSTEMS, a manufacturer of power-generation and power distribution equipment in the U.S. and Canada, today announced it will be showcasing its portable generators and other equipment at CONEXPO-CON/AGG, March 7-11, 2017 in Las Vegas. The company’s exhibit will be at Booth B8205 in the Bronze Lot, which is located on the south end of the Convention Center adjacent to South Road. The display will include diesel generators with engines from John Deere and Yanmar, as well as one of HIPOWER SYSTEMS’ clean-burning, energy efficient Waukesha natural gas generators. “For construction-related industries, from mining to utilities and beyond, dependability and longevity of power supply is paramount,” said HIPOWER SYSTEMS President Rafael Acosta. “We are pleased to have the opportunity to showcase our top-quality, field-proven equipment for the benefit of attendees.” Although HIPOWER SYSTEMS’ parent firm, HIMOINSA, entered the U.S. market barely a decade ago, the company’s equipment has already gained a stellar reputation for being reliable in the harshest of conditions, with designs that facilitate easy maintenance, portability, parallel configurations, and other high-demand features. "As a leading global manufacturer, HIPOWER SYSTEMS offers a full line of power products—from prime portable power systems and industrial standby generators to power distribution equipment, cables and accessories—something for everyone at this show,” said Josh Mosko, HIPOWER SYSTEMS VP of Sales & Marketing. “We look forward to speaking with clients and attendees to discuss how we can add value and engineer a solution to meet their needs and the needs of their customers with reliable, quality equipment.” For the show, the company selected generators in a broad range of power ratings, from 40 to 408 KW. All are powered by radiator-cooled, EPA-compliant* industrial engines driving a four-pole, three-phase alternator with IP23 protection. Display models are built with HIPOWER SYSTEMS’ industry-leading enclosures, which feature compact footprints, sound dampening, oil-resistant, washable rock-wool insulation, watertight, easy-access doors, and convenient power distribution panels with Camlok connectors and receptacles. All are also NEMA 3R and/or NEMA 4X, UL50 rated, making them perfectly suited to the rigors of outdoor usage. HRYW-50: Rated at 40 KW prime, the HRYW-50 is powered by a reliable Yanmar industrial diesel engine and certified by the Canadian Standards Association. It measures approximately 3’ x 7’ and weighs 2600 pounds. HRJW-145: Rated at 117 KW prime, the HRJW-145 is powered by a top-rated John Deere diesel engine and certified by the Canadian Standards Association. It measures approximately 4’ x 9’ and weighs 5300 pounds. HRJW-205: Rated at 165 KW prime, the HRJW-165 is powered by a top-rated John Deere diesel engine and certified by the Canadian Standards Association. It measures approximately 4’ x 11’ and weighs 6800 pounds. HRNG-510: Rated at 408 KW prime, the HRNG-510 is powered by a super-energy-efficient, EPA certified, Waukesha industrial gaseous engine, making it both environmentally friendly and cost-effective to operate. It measures approximately 7’ x 19’ and weighs 23,000 pounds. HIPOWER SYSTEMS (a division of Himoinsa, S.L.; a member of the YANMAR Co. Ltd group of companies) is the principal supplier of power distribution and prime, standalone power-generation equipment and packages to the U.S. and Canadian markets, serving the Residential, Commercial and Industrial sectors including the Agriculture, Telecommunications, Health Care and Oil & Gas Industries. The company builds and customizes backup generators, diesel generators, natural gas generators and alternative bi-fuel generator sets from 8 KW to 3 MW with a complete range of accessories, including automatic transfer switches, paralleling switchgear, UL tanks, enclosures and power distribution equipment. In North America and throughout the globe, our rental packages and power distribution equipment are recognized as the best power solution source for emergency and disaster relief. For more information, visit http://www.hipowersystems.com.


News Article | February 28, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

ROCHELLE PARK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--ORBCOMM Inc. (NASDAQ:ORBC), a global provider of Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, today announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2016. The following financial highlights are in thousands of dollars. “In 2016 we continued to introduce innovative solutions for transportation, logistics and heavy equipment, which we expect will continue to positively impact the business in 2017 and beyond. These include several new products, customers, partners, and geographic territories,” said Marc Eisenberg, ORBCOMM’s Chief Executive Officer. “We continue to leverage the strong momentum for IoT as companies across all industries are adopting IoT solutions central to their core strategy. We believe we are in a strong position to execute on these new opportunities.” “In the fourth quarter Service Revenues increased 8.4% to $29.4 million, capping off a strong 2016 that saw Service Revenues increase 13% overall lifted by both acquisitions and organic growth,” said Robert Costantini, ORBCOMM’s Chief Financial Officer. “Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter of $12.5 million at improving margins of 26.6% was driven by high incremental margin Service Revenues.” For more information on recent highlights, please visit www.orbcomm.com. For the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2016, Service Revenues were up 8% over the prior year period to $29.4 million. The increase in Service Revenues in Q4 this year was driven by both organic growth and our most recent acquisitions. Organic growth of 4% benefited from the OG2 satellite constellation as well as our growing subscriber base across multiple lines of business. For the full year 2016, Service Revenues were $112.9 million compared to $100.0 million in 2015, an increase of $12.9 million or 12.9%. Product Sales during the fourth quarter of 2016 were $17.4 million compared to $17.9 million during the same period last year, decreasing ($0.5) million or 2.5%. Product Sales were lower largely due to the timing of deployments and delays in obtaining the required LTE product certifications, which resulted in a shift of about 10,000 units of backlog or $3-4 million to the first quarter of 2017. Product Sales for the full year 2016 were $73.9 million compared to $78.3 million in 2015, a decrease of ($4.5) million or 5.7%. Total Revenues of $46.8 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2016 were up $1.8 million or 4.1% compared to $45.0 million during the same period of 2015. Total Revenues for the full year 2016 were $186.7 million compared to $178.3 million in 2015, an increase of 4.7%, led by double digit Service Revenue growth. Total Cost of Revenues and Operating Expenses for the fourth quarter of 2016 were $47.5 million compared to $42.6 million during the same period in 2015. Cost of Revenues, exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization, increased $1.0 million or 2.8% year-over-year largely due to higher Cost of products sold. For the quarter, Cost of services, excluding Depreciation and Amortization, increased 2.8% to $9.6 million and as a percentage of Service Revenues decreased to 32.6% or 170 basis points lower than the fourth quarter of 2015 improving Service margins this quarter to 67.4%. Operating Expenses for the full year were higher primarily due to higher Depreciation and Amortization and non-labor related SG&A expenses. For the full year, Selling, general and administrative expense and Product development expenses increased 4.5% to $53.2 million. Total Cost of Revenues and Operating Expenses for the full year 2016 were $201.2 million or 8.5% higher than last year’s $185.5 million. However, Total Cost of Revenues and Operating Expenses, exclusive of Depreciation and Amortization, decreased $0.5 million or 0.3% compared to last year, and as a percentage of Total Revenues declined to 84.8% from 89.1% last year. Fiscal 2016 results include an impairment charge of ($10.7) million to write-off the net book value of one of the in-orbit OG2 satellites as of September 30, 2016 that was launched in July 2014 where communication was lost. The loss of this one satellite is not expected to have a material impact on network communications services or our financials going forward. The Company believes the loss of communication is likely specific to this one satellite. Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes, Net Income (Loss), and Earnings Per Share Income (Loss) Before Income Taxes for the fourth quarter of 2016 was a ($2.9) million loss, compared to the $1.2 million profit for the fourth quarter of 2015. For the full year 2016, the Loss Before Income Taxes was ($22.7) million compared to a loss of ($11.8) million in 2015, reflecting higher Depreciation and Amortization of ($16.2) million in 2016, partially offset by a lower satellite impairment charge in 2016 of $2.1 million. Net (Loss) Income attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders was ($3.2) million Net Loss for the fourth quarter of 2016, compared to Net Income of $0.2 million for the same period in 2015. Basic EPS was a loss of ($0.05) per share for the fourth quarter of 2016 versus $0.00 per share for the same period last year. Net (Loss) attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders was ($23.5) million for the full year 2016 compared to a loss of ($13.3) million in 2015. Basic EPS was a loss of ($0.33) per share for the full year 2016 versus a loss of ($0.19) per share for 2015. Net Income (Loss) – Ex-Items, attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders and Basic EPS – Ex-Items are non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company. Please see the financial tables at the end of the release for a reconciliation of Net Income (Loss) – Ex-Items, attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders and Basic EPS – Ex-Items. EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2016 was $10.5 million compared to $9.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015. For the full year 2016, EBITDA was $28.5 million compared to $19.4 million in 2015, an increase of $9.1 million or 46.7%. Adjusted EBITDA of $12.5 million for the fourth quarter of 2016 was 4.9% higher than last year’s $11.9 million in the fourth quarter. Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of Total Revenues for the quarter was 26.6% or 21 basis points better than last year’s fourth quarter. For the full year 2016, Adjusted EBITDA was $47.3 million compared to $42.3 million for 2015, an increase of $4.9 million or 11.7%. Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of Total Revenues for the full year was 25.3% or 157 basis points better than last year. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company to measure operating performance and the quality of earnings. Please see the financial tables at the end of the release for a reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA. At December 31, 2016, Cash and Cash Equivalents totaled $25.0 million, compared to $28.1 million at December 31, 2015 that included $1.0 million in Restricted Cash, decreasing ($3.1) million. The cash decline was partially offset by the $28.9 million of Cash generated by operations for 2016. Cash invested in Capital Expenditures was ($28.4) million, of which ($8.3) million was due to the completion of milestone and insurance payments for the OG2 program related to the final launch in late 2015 and includes ($1.6) million of capitalized interest. In addition, we paid ($3.8) million for the Skygistics acquisition in the second quarter of 2016. ORBCOMM will host a conference call and webcast for the investment community this morning at 8:30 AM ET. Senior management will review the results, discuss ORBCOMM’s business, and address questions. To access the call, domestic participants should dial 1-888-312-3052 at least ten minutes prior to the start of the call. International callers should dial 1-719-325-2298. To hear a live web simulcast or to listen to the archived webcast following completion of the call, please visit the Company’s website at http://investors.orbcomm.com and then select “News & Events” to access the link to the call. To listen to a replay of the conference call, please visit https://event.mymeetingroom.com/Public/WebRegistration/Y29uZmVyZW5jZUlkPTYwNTA3ODgmdHlwZT1yZXBsYXkmbGFuZ3VhZ2U9ZW5nbGlzaA The replay will be available from approximately 1:30 PM ET on February 28, 2017, through 1:30 PM ET on March 14, 2017. ORBCOMM Inc. (Nasdaq: ORBC) is a leading global provider of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication solutions and the only commercial satellite network dedicated to M2M. ORBCOMM’s unique combination of global satellite, cellular and dual-mode network connectivity, hardware, web reporting applications and software is the M2M industry’s most complete service offering. Our solutions are designed to remotely track, monitor, and control fixed and mobile assets in core vertical markets including transportation & distribution, heavy equipment, industrial fixed assets, oil & gas, maritime, mining and government. With close to two decades of innovation and expertise in M2M, ORBCOMM has more than 1.7 million subscribers with a diverse customer base including premier OEMs such as Caterpillar Inc., Doosan Infracore America, Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., John Deere, Komatsu Ltd., and Volvo Construction Equipment, as well as end-to-end solutions customers such as C&S Wholesale, Canadian National Railways, CR England, Hub Group, KLLM Transport Services, Marten Transport, Swift Transportation, Target, Tropicana, Tyson Foods, Walmart, Union Pacific Railroad and Werner Enterprises. For more information, visit www.orbcomm.com. Certain statements discussed in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to our plans, estimates, objectives and expectations for future events, as well as projections, business trends and other statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, which may cause the Company’s actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to: demand for and market acceptance of our products and services and our ability to successfully implement our business plan; our dependence on our subsidiary companies (Market Channel Affiliates (MCAs)) and third party product and service developers and providers, distributors and resellers (Market Channel Partners (MCPs)) to develop, market and sell our products and services, especially in markets outside the United States; substantial losses we have incurred and may continue to incur; the inability to effect suitable investments, alliances and acquisitions, and even if we are able to make acquisitions, the failure to integrate and effectively operate the acquired businesses and the exposure to additional risks, such as unexpected costs, contingent or other liabilities, or weaknesses in internal controls, and issues related to non-compliance with domestic and foreign laws, particularly in acquisitions of foreign businesses; our dependence on a few significant customers for a substantial portion of our revenues, including key customers such as Caterpillar Inc., Komatsu Ltd., Hub Group, Onixsat and Satlink S.L.; our ability to expand our business outside the United States, including risks related to the economic, political and other conditions in foreign countries in which we do business, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; our dependence on a few significant vendors, service providers or suppliers, as well as the loss or disruption or slowdown in the supply of products and services these key vendors, such as our SkyWave business’s dependence on its commercial relationship with Inmarsat plc and the services provided by Inmarsat plc, including the continued availability of Inmarsat plc’s satellites, the supply of subscriber communicators from Sanmina Corporation and Quake Global, or the supply of application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) from S3 Group; competition from existing and potential telecommunications competitors, including terrestrial and satellite-based network providers, some of whom provide wireless network services to our customers in connection with our products and services; our reliance on intellectual property rights and the risk that we, our MCAs, our MCPs and our customers may infringe on the intellectual property rights of others; inability to operate due to changes or restrictions in the political, legal, regulatory, government, administrative and economic conditions and developments in the United States and other countries and territories in which we provide our services; legal proceedings; the failure of our system or reductions in levels of service due to technological malfunctions or deficiencies or other events, such as in-orbit satellite failures, reduced performance of our existing satellites, or man-made or natural disasters and other extreme events; rapid and significant technological changes, pricing pressures and other competitive factors; cybersecurity risks; and the terms of our credit agreement, under which we currently have borrowed $150 million and may borrow up to an additional $10 million, that could restrict our business activities or our ability to execute our strategic objectives or adversely affect our financial performance. In addition, specific consideration should be given to various factors described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, and elsewhere in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other documents, on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise any forward-looking statements or cautionary factors, except as required by law. The following table reconciles our Net Income attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA for the periods shown: ORBCOMM publicly reports its financial information in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”). To facilitate external analysis of the Company’s operating performance, ORBCOMM also presents financial information that are considered “non-GAAP financial measures” under Regulation G and related reporting requirements promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Non-GAAP measures should be considered in addition to, and not as a substitute for, or superior to, Net Income or other measures of financial performance prepared in accordance with GAAP and may be different than those presented by other companies. EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin are not performance measures calculated in accordance with GAAP and are therefore considered non-GAAP measures. A reconciliation table is presented above. EBITDA is defined as earnings attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. before interest income (expense), loss on debt extinguishment, provision for income taxes and depreciation and amortization. ORBCOMM believes EBITDA is useful to its management and investors in evaluating operating performance because it is one of the primary measures used to evaluate the economic productivity of the Company’s operations, including its ability to obtain and maintain its customers, its ability to operate its business effectively, the efficiency of its employees and the profitability associated with their performance. It also helps ORBCOMM’s management and investors to meaningfully evaluate and compare the results of the Company’s operations from period to period on a consistent basis by removing the impact of its financing transactions and the depreciation and amortization impact of capital investments from its operating results. In addition, ORBCOMM management uses EBITDA in presentations to its board of directors to enable it to have the same measurement of operating performance used by management and for planning purposes, including the preparation of the annual operating budget. The Company also believes that Adjusted EBITDA, defined as EBITDA adjusted for stock-based compensation expense, noncontrolling interests, impairment loss, non-capitalized satellite launch and in-orbit insurance, insurance recovery, and acquisition-related and integration costs, is useful to investors to evaluate the Company’s core operating results and financial performance because it excludes items that are significant non-cash or non-recurring expenses reflected in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Adjusted EBITDA Margin equals Adjusted EBITDA divided by Total Revenues. The following table reconciles our Net Income (Loss) attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders to Net Income (Loss) – Ex-Items, attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders and Basic EPS to Basic EPS – Ex-Items for the periods shown: Net Income (Loss) – Ex-Items attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders is defined as Net Income (Loss) attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders, excluding Impairment Loss-satellite network, and Acquisition-related and integration costs. Basic EPS – Ex-Items is defined as Basic EPS excluding Impairment Loss-satellite network, and Acquisition-related and integration costs. Net Income (Loss) – Ex-Items attributable to ORBCOMM Inc. Common Stockholders and Basic EPS – Ex-Items are non-GAAP financial measures used by the Company. These non-GAAP financial measures are used as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. These non-GAAP measures are presented in this press release as management believes that they will provide investors with a means of evaluating, and an understanding of how management evaluates, the Company’s performance and results on a comparable basis that is not otherwise apparent on a GAAP basis, since many non-recurring, infrequent or non-cash items that management believes are not indicative of the core performance of the business may not be excluded when preparing financial measures under GAAP. These non-GAAP measures should not be considered in isolation from, as substitutes for, or superior to financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP, or may be different from similarly titled measures reported by other companies. A reconciliation table is presented above.


News Article | February 28, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

ROCHELLE PARK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--ORBCOMM Inc. (Nasdaq:ORBC), a global provider of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, today announced that its Chief Financial Officer, Robert Costantini, will be participating in the 38th Annual Raymond James Institutional Investors Conference at the JW Marriott Grande Lakes in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Costantini will be presenting on Monday, March 6 at 7:30 AM Eastern Time. The audio portion of the presentation can be accessed at http://wsw.com/webcast/rj104/orbc. ORBCOMM Inc. (Nasdaq: ORBC) is a leading global provider of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and Internet of Things (IoT) communication solutions and the only commercial satellite network dedicated to M2M. ORBCOMM’s unique combination of global satellite, cellular and dual-mode network connectivity, hardware, web reporting applications and software is the M2M industry’s most complete service offering. Our solutions are designed to remotely track, monitor, and control fixed and mobile assets in core vertical markets including transportation & distribution, heavy equipment, industrial fixed assets, oil & gas, maritime, mining and government. With close to two decades of innovation and expertise in M2M, ORBCOMM has more than 1.72 million subscribers with a diverse customer base including premier OEMs such as Caterpillar Inc., Doosan Infracore America, Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., John Deere, Komatsu Ltd., and Volvo Construction Equipment, as well as end-to-end solutions customers such as C&S Wholesale, Canadian National Railways, CR England, Hub Group, KLLM Transport Services, Marten Transport, Swift Transportation, Target, Tropicana, Tyson Foods, Walmart, Union Pacific Railroad and Werner Enterprises. For more information, visit www.orbcomm.com. Certain statements discussed in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally relate to our plans, objectives and expectations for future events and include statements about our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, intentions, assumptions and other statements that are not historical facts. Such forward-looking statements, including those concerning the Company’s expectations, are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the results, projected, expected or implied by the forward-looking statements, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, that may cause the Company’s actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In addition, specific consideration should be given to various factors described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and Part II, Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and elsewhere in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other documents, on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise any forward-looking statements or cautionary factors, except as required by law.


— This report studies sales (consumption) of Outdoor Power Equipment in Global market, especially in United States, China, Europe, Japan, focuses on top players in these regions/countries, with sales, price, revenue and market share for each player in these regions, covering Market Segment by Regions, this report splits Global into several key Regions, with sales (consumption), revenue, market share and growth rate of Outdoor Power Equipment in these regions, from 2011 to 2021 (forecast), like Split by product Types, with sales, revenue, price and gross margin, market share and growth rate of each type, can be divided into Lawnmowers Turf & Grounds Equipment Trimmers & Edgers Other Products Split by applications, this report focuses on sales, market share and growth rate of Outdoor Power Equipment in each application, can be divided into Application 1 Application 2 Application 3 Global Outdoor Power Equipment Sales Market Report 2016 1 Outdoor Power Equipment Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of Outdoor Power Equipment 1.2 Classification of Outdoor Power Equipment 1.2.1 Lawnmowers 1.2.2 Turf & Grounds Equipment 1.2.3 Trimmers & Edgers 1.2.4 Other Products 1.3 Application of Outdoor Power Equipment 1.3.1 Application 1 1.3.2 Application 2 1.3.3 Application 3 1.4 Outdoor Power Equipment Market by Regions 1.4.1 United States Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value and Volume) of Outdoor Power Equipment (2011-2021) 1.5.1 Global Outdoor Power Equipment Sales and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 1.5.2 Global Outdoor Power Equipment Revenue and Growth Rate (2011-2021) 7 Global Outdoor Power Equipment Manufacturers Analysis 7.1 John Deere 7.1.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.1.2 Outdoor Power Equipment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.1.2.1 Type I 7.1.2.2 Type II 7.1.3 John Deere Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.1.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.2 TORO 7.2.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.2.2 114 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.2.2.1 Type I 7.2.2.2 Type II 7.2.3 TORO Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.2.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.3 MTD 7.3.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.3.2 135 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.3.2.1 Type I 7.3.2.2 Type II 7.3.3 MTD Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.3.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.4 Craftsman 7.4.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.4.2 Nov Product Type, Application and Specification 7.4.2.1 Type I 7.4.2.2 Type II 7.4.3 Craftsman Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.4.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.5 Black & Decker(Stanley) 7.5.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.5.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.5.2.1 Type I 7.5.2.2 Type II 7.5.3 Black & Decker(Stanley) Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.5.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.6 Briggs & Stratton 7.6.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.6.2 Million USD Product Type, Application and Specification 7.6.2.1 Type I 7.6.2.2 Type II 7.6.3 Briggs & Stratton Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.6.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.7 Blount 7.7.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.7.2 Machinery & Equipment Product Type, Application and Specification 7.7.2.1 Type I 7.7.2.2 Type II 7.7.3 Blount Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.7.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.8 Ariens 7.8.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.8.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.8.2.1 Type I 7.8.2.2 Type II 7.8.3 Ariens Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.8.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.9 Remington 7.9.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.9.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.9.2.1 Type I 7.9.2.2 Type II 7.9.3 Remington Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.9.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.10 MAT Engine Technologies 7.10.1 Company Basic Information, Manufacturing Base and Competitors 7.10.2 Product Type, Application and Specification 7.10.2.1 Type I 7.10.2.2 Type II 7.10.3 MAT Engine Technologies Outdoor Power Equipment Sales, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 7.10.4 Main Business/Business Overview 7.11 Brinly-Hardy 7.12 McLane 7.13 Sun Joe 7.14 American Lawn Mower 7.15 Husqvarna 7.16 STIHL 7.17 EMAK 7.18 Honda 7.19 Makita 7.20 ECHO For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/751452-global-outdoor-power-equipment-sales-market-report-2016


News Article | March 1, 2017
Site: www.prweb.com

The Jensen Maritime-designed Earl W. Redd, the first tractor tugboat in America to enter service in compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Tier IV environmental standards by use of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system, was christened earlier this month by owner Harley Marine Services Inc., of Seattle. An SCR system scrubs emissions by converting nitrogen oxide (NOx) into ammonia, which is then absorbed by ceramic bricks built into the engines. The technology significantly reduces the amount of NOx, particulate matter and hydrocarbons released into the environment, and makes the 120-foot vessel one of the cleanest-running tugboats in terms of marine emissions. Built at Diversified Marine Inc.’s shipyard in Portland, Ore., the Earl W. Redd is the first of seven such tugs in development by Jensen. “With six more Tier IV tugboat designs slated for release soon, Jensen is leading the industry in the production of environmentally friendly designs balanced with high-quality performance,” said Jensen’s Johan Sperling, vice president. “The completion of this tug is a continuation of our commitment to meet the industry’s demands for strong, yet nimble, vessels with quality design.” Jensen also equipped the Earl W. Redd with modern Rolls-Royce US 255-P30-FP Z-drive propulsion and two Caterpillar 3516E diesel engines, for a rated 5,000 horsepower. Two, 125 kilowatt-hour (kW) John Deere generator sets provide the tug’s electrical power. Jensen designed the vessel to carry up to 128,000 gallons of fuel; 6,534 gallons of fresh water; 1,137 gallons of lube oil; and 1,263 gallons of hydraulic oil. The towing gear consists of a Markey, double-drum, towing winch, with 2,600 feet of towing wire mounted on the stern and a Markey ship-assist hawser winch on the bow. A large pilot house provides all-around visibility, and the deckhouse has an open feel with a large mess and lounge area along with accommodations for a 10-person crew. Following the christening, the Earl W. Redd joined Harley’s Olympic tug-and-barge operations along the U.S. West Coast, including in Alaska, the Puget Sound and on the Columbia River. Seattle-based Jensen Maritime Consultants Inc. is a naval architecture and marine engineering firm owned by Crowley Maritime Corporation. The company offers a diverse range of consulting, design and engineering services developed from more than 50 years of experience working around the world. Jensen is a recognized leader in the design of all types of vessels and has built a favorable reputation on a long history of successful designs and conversions with close attention to engineering basics. The company's services include detail and conceptual design and engineering, vessel modifications, lofting, regulatory and shipyard liaison as well as on-site consulting services and on-location assistance anywhere in the world. Additional information about Jensen can be found at jensenmaritime.com. For more information about Jensen’s 125-year old parent company, Crowley, please visit crowley.com.


News Article | February 28, 2017
Site: www.prnewswire.com

This program recognizes dedication, quality, and continuous improvement. DORVAL, QC, Feb. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire/ - Dicom Transportation Group has earned recognition for the second year in a row as a Partner-Level Supplier in the John Deere Achieving Excellence Program. The...


Patent
John Deere | Date: 2013-03-15

Self-powered apparatus are disclosed. An example apparatus includes a front chassis portion and a rear chassis portion. The front chassis portion is to be coupled to the rear chassis portion. The front chassis portion is substantially the same as the rear chassis portion. When the front and rear chassis portions are coupled, the front chassis portion includes a first end of the apparatus and the rear chassis portion includes a second end of the apparatus.


Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Electric Vehicles for Construction, Agriculture and Mining 2017-2027" report to their offering. Electric vehicles for construction, agriculture and mining will be a $81 billion market in 2027. Komatsu, John Deere, Caterpillar, and others manufacture the big vehicles - mainly hybrid - while other manufacturers offer smaller, pure-electric versions. Pure electric is a legal requirement indoors. Outdoors, fuel saving and better performance attracts. Cranes and man lifters have many applications. Their production volumes are larger than most people realise. So it is with the electric versions set for 165,000 to be sold in 2027. This is an industry about to change radically. For example, in mining, over 90% of the world's mines are open cast. They are often in remote places up to 4000 meters above sea level, where shipping diesel can cost more than buying it. Consequently, there is now a move to have 350 kW giant haul trucks working the floor and separately the top of the mine with electric rail-veyors lifting the ore from bottom to top. In an all-electric solution new pollution laws can be met, image improved and money saved, the electricity coming from the mine's own wind turbines and photovoltaics. Battery swapping and fast charging of those batteries means 350 kWh batteries suffice - big but no larger than those in other EV sectors. The new report explains all this and gives detailed forecasts, comparisons and assessments. It shows how mines will electrify much more but only after the current bust period of the boom-and-bust that characterises this industry. It shows why the ubiquitous tractor in agriculture will, at last, be electric in volume quantities by 2027 and how new forms of vehicle design are coming. Benchmarking from the 46 categories of electric vehicle that the analyst forecasts, the report explains what new technologies will arrive and why. Supercapacitors, new power components, greater modularisation and integration will transform this industry. The report draws on interviews and results of many recent conferences on these sectors. For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/r666v9/electric_vehicles

Loading John Deere collaborators
Loading John Deere collaborators