1986). Under this analysis the two part-inquiry collapses into a single due process analysis being limited only by federal due process standards. See Rambo, 839 F.2d at 1416 (interpreting Oklahoma statute for jurisdiction to the fullest extent of the Constitution of the United States). A. Based Upon Activities at the Website Establishing jurisdiction through the Internet, or more specifically through a website, has been described as coming under a framework of three general categories within a sliding scale. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119, 1123-24 (W.D.Pa.1997). At one end of the spectrum, ncluding that defendant’s passive website did not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction); SF Hotel Co. v. Energy Invs., Inc., 985 F.Supp. 1032, 1033-86 (D.Kan.1997) (<HOLDING>); Millennium Enters. Inc., 33 F.Supp.2d at
holding passive website to be an invalid reason for granting jurisdiction holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction