Select Page

Ben Edelman has been putting up additional documents from Elliot Spitzer’s suite against Direct Revenue as fast as he can.  These are the exhibits referenced in the highly damning affirmation and petition written by NY AG attorney Justin Brookman. There’s more being put up regularly, so check back.

Here is the documentation of a completely corrupt organization.  Solely for personal gain, officers of Direct Revenue lived, ate and breathed to rape the machines of unknowing Internet users.  

Some tasty snippets:

Exhibit 2 -146-page compilation of December 1, 2005 interrogatory responses and attachments. Includes the following:

Discusses Direct Revenue’s installation counts. (2)

Discloses revenues ($6.9 million in 2003, $39 million in 2004, $33 million in January-October 2005). (4) Discloses revenues from installing other vendors’ software ($4 million for January-October 2005). (4)

Discusses the role and effects of Insight Venture Partners’ 2004 purchase of 25% of Direct Revenue for $12 million, and Direct Revenue’s borrowing from Insight and Technology Investment Capital Corp (TICC), $21.7 million total in 2004. (4-5) Shows specific 2004-2005 distributions to Direct Revenue’s senior staff, totaling more than $27 million. (6)

Discusses the ad networks used to track advertising display, including Aquantive’s Atlas and DoubleClick. (8) Discusses other sources from which Direct Revenue receives ads, including LinkShare and eBay .(8)

Exhibit 4 – Direct Revenue LLC agreement. Reports Joshua Abram as 36% owner, Daniel Kaufman as 32% owner, Alan Murray as 27% owner, and Rodney Hook as 5% owner.

Exhibit 5 – User complaints and threats, and Direct Revenue’s responses (including jokes)….

Exhibit 6 – 122-page compilation of January 17, 2006 interrogatory responses and attachments….

Discusses the limited circumstances in which Direct Revenue elected to automatically remove its software from users’ computers after concluding that installations were nonconsensual. Argues that such automated removal constitutes “throw[ing] the baby out with the bathwater” because it would (purportedly) not be “in the best interests of the many users who had accepted [Direct Revenue’s] value proposition.” (2-6)

Discusses disclosures shown to Lycos users as to “the search panel feature of your Internet Explorer program” being “under new ownership.” (11-13)

…Discusses a “KZ Torpedo” to remove unknown other software. (23-34)

…Presents Direct Revenue’s records of specific users, including users’ IP addresses. (36)

Exhibit 18 – Discussion with Holistyc of distribution methods. Discusses possible use of “tricks” to improve installation rates, as well as methods of “dogting SP2 and anti-virus programs ”

Exhibit 19 – Discussion of a Microsoft invitation to a September 2004 “Microsoft VC Roundtable.” Admits that Direct Revenue “takes advantage of their [Microsoft’s] vulnerability and poor design.”

Two words: Treasure trove.

Link here.

Alex Eckelberry