You are about to join the
Discussion : $2M from nothing
Discussion is closed !Total 14 comments
2009-03-25 20:55:36 -
It's important to understand a few things here. First, Morgenstern was never charged with a crime and there is no evidence that he ever committed one. The FTC, the US trade commission, filed a complaint against his company and got a temporary restraining order which was eventually lifted. They have done this with uncountable Canadian companies that attempt to move into the US market. (Keep in mind that Canada is overrun with American companies.)
The FTC is responsible for protecting American interests in terms of trade. They respond to pressure from corporate interests - the long drawn out software lumber issue is a case in point. Eventually it went to the WTO and the Canadian software industry won, as they had over and over and over both there and in US courts. The point is, the FTC protects US business interests.
In the case of Morgenstern, there was a settlement, the restraining order was lifted, and the case never went anywhere. Incidentally, this happened in 2001, not 2004.
"NOTE: Stipulated final judgments and orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation."
From the posting at FTC on the settlement, link below.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/morgenstern.shtm
2009-03-17 20:55:32 -
wow, i wish he taught a course on scamming. then i would sign up and scam thousands of people like he does. and when did he sell ashley madison????
he also owns some marketing company. hmmmmm. aren't these all some kind of marketing company? marketing scams to make millions of dollars?!
2009-01-29 15:54:57 -
it is the same darren...he sold ashley madison
2008-03-24 12:14:28 -
Is this the same Darren Morgenstern that owns The Haverhill Institute of Staging and Design in Toronto, Ontario?
I hope its not a scam :(
2008-03-06 11:00:12 -
Is this the same Morgenstern of the Ashley Madison fame?
2007-03-02 21:50:31 -
kzyl rzoyid qzjl gamuskvo iftjeczxa lwnejcx xayeqruhk zesod yael
2007-03-02 21:50:29 -
zogad lwesto vnpdc vconwmbi smzebrf cletmrs ketgwrji http://www.khysvwrg.qdhjpa.com
2007-03-02 21:50:23 -
uwexqfph jqwsx usitqwd prkqjl emnzhgta epjvsdw zorncm
2005-12-30 02:37:42 -
Theirs no way you get the traffic they say you do DARREN MORGENSTERN your just a idiot.
http://bloggeroffline.blogspot.com
2005-12-30 02:37:02 -
Theirs no way you get the traffic they say you do DARREN MORGENSTERN your just a idiot.
http://bloggeroffline.blogspot.com
2005-09-01 21:26:49 -
Your blog is very interesint
2005-03-05 17:51:58 -
You think thats bad you should see his latest scam. The guys a major scammer and needs to be prosecuted ripping off online customers is his claim to fame.
2004-04-12 05:41:26 -
This injunction is nonsense!
This guy isn't doing anyone any harm. If anything, he's performing a valuable service to educate these domain name owners. If they have a name worth protected, they should have registered the variants long ago. I never thought to register all the variants of my main name, and I've been on the web since 1994. Consequently all the variations are owned by others doing this disturbingly similar to my own busines. But I dont have the money or the time to pursue fighting them in a bunch of foreign countries.
And $70 is the same fee Network Solutions used to demand. You used to have to register for 2 years at $35 per year.
"The Federal Trade Commission has asked a U.S. District Court Judge to halt an Internet domain name scheme that dupes consumers into needlessly registering variations of their existing domain names."
Needless? It all depends on how strongly a company wants to protect their name. If some named Bob Reuters registers the Reuters.org, Reuters.com might have trouble getting the name, especially if Bob doesn't try to make his site into a news service. If he was a plumber, Roto-Reuter plumbing would be more of a threat to roto-rooter than it would be to Reuters news.
Given how asleep most legal departments, and internet consultants are, I'd say this guy probably informed a lot of companies of a very cheap way to avoid problems in the future.
If someone paid, did he actually register the domain name for them, in their name? Then the only "crime" is selling an overpriced domain name registration service. Guess what, Network Solutions does that all the time!
And nothing here says that the owner of the main name couldn't just go out and register the extra domains for themselves. If the guy wasn't cybersquatting, then nothing prevented the recipient of the fax from avoiding paying the $70 fee. If they did pay the fee to him, then he made a reasonable markup for his time to make the domain name painless for the clueless owned of a business.
Additionally, owning extra domains gives a company the opportunity to create extra feeder sites that direct traffic to their main site. All the biggest sites do this with simple redirects.
The only place this guy went over the line is with the claim of a registration attempt by a third party. But everything else in what he was doing, including his capitalized disclaimer, is not a problem. Nothing wrong in what he said. There is no claim that he was actually cybersquatting.
Anyhow, this case is nonsense! They might as well accused this guy of being a terrorist. That makes as much sense as anything else about the problem the FTC is having.
2004-04-08 15:51:49 -
have you looked into an Ontario based company named Internet Corporation Listing Service (ICLS.NET)? It operates on a similar pattern and scale.
Total 14 comments
