is clearly conducted through the entering of contracts requiring repeated acts, such as the transmission of files over the Internet. These websites are said to subject the host provider to the user’s jurisdiction. Id. at 1124. At the opposite end are passive websites which do little more than provide available information to the interested user and are not proper grounds to exercise personal jurisdiction. The middle ground contains interactive websites where users can exchange information with the host computer. Jurisdiction in these cases depends on “the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the [website].” Id. This spectrum analysis appears to be gaining favor. See also Soma Medical Int’l, 196 F.3d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Patriot Sys., Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d at 1323-24
holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding passive website to be an invalid reason for granting jurisdiction holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction