Florida addresses were enrolled in online courses offered through the Video Network. “The mere existence of a website does not show that a defendant is directing its business activities towards every forum where the website is visible.” McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.Bd 107, 124 (1st Cir. 2005). Columbia’s contacts with Florida through the website were not substantial. See Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 470-71 (5th Cir.2002); Trintee Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1281 (Fed.Cir.2005); Dynetech Corp. v. Leonard Fitness, Inc., 523 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1348 (M.D.Fla.2007); Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 454 (3d Cir.2003). Third, Ocean World contends that Columbia’s property interests in Florida support a findi , 925 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); United Shipping Co. (Nassau) Ltd. v. Witmer,
holding that defendants activities were not sufficient to support general jurisdiction where it did not maintain an office do business itself in the state nor have an agent in the state holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state holding that the district court could not exercise general jurisdiction over the simcom defendants where defendants derived 136 of its revenue from the forum state but were not registered to do business in massachusetts and had no massachusettsbased employees