Absent actual exchanges or transactions with residents of the forum or evidence that local residents were targeted, the distinctions between specific and general jurisdiction become blurred. As the courts in Inset and Maritz point out, Web sites are accessible day and night to all who possess the necessary technological know-how and equipment. Taking this reasoning to its logical conclusion, a plaintiff could sue a foreign defendant in any forum and claim jurisdiction based on the defendant's interactive Web site, even if the cause of action is unrelated to the Web site. The grasp of personal jurisdiction was never intended to reach so far and so wide. Until transactions with Oregon residents are consummated through defendants' Web site, defendants cannot reasonably anticipate that they will be brought before this court, simply because they advertise their products through a global medium which provides the capability of engaging in commercial transactions.
Due process requires that personal jurisdiction be based first and foremost on fairness.
In fact, it does not permit a forum actoris obliging the plaintiff to travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in order to prevail its IP rights. I guess that's the real question as well in the material world as in cyberspace.