Oral Argument in Gator.com v. LL Bean

I went to the en banc argument in the 9th Circuit yesterday.  I've been thinking of this as an Internet jurisdiction case, but now I'm thinking of it more as a declaratory judgment jurisdiction case.  Of course, it is both.  
The Court seemed to be struggling to find a way to find specific jurisdiction for this case over whether use of URLs to deploy pop-ups infringes trademarks, and thus to avoid the issue of whether there can be general jurisdiction over a company based solely on massive sales of goods into the forum state via Internet and catalog commerce.   But if there is specific jurisdiction for this case, why is that?  Not because LL Bean sent C&D letters to California.   The DJ cases say this is not enough.  You need letters-plus-something-more.  Several judges seemed to be inclined to find "something more" in the pop-ups appearing on the screens of California consumers who are Gator "customers" and visited the LL Bean website.  But Bean is concerned not only about its California web-site shopper but about all the visitors to its web site  who are getting pop-ups offering them coupons for competitor Eddie Bauer.  But that leads to the possibility that there could be specific jurisdiction in lots and lots of states, to the dismay of online retailers.   Bean's counsel  did a fine job of pointing out all the contacts it doesn't have, but can't get away from the fact that Bean makes a big bag of money in California and intend to keep doing so, and that means keeping fast Eddie from poppin up on their site.  My take?  The old indicia of systematic and continuous contacts in a forum state --stores, employees, agents, regular visits in the flesh-- don't reflect modern e-commerce.   Perhaps the whole idea of general and specific jurisdiction needs to be disposed of and venue rules beefed up.   The Ninth needs to address that and come up with a test for jurisdiction in e-commerce cases without doing something so extreme as to provoke the Supreme Court.   I fear we may end up with a plurality opinion with most of the judges voting that there is jurisdiction over LL Bean in California, but each opinion-writer for different, inconsistent reasons.  These issues need to percolate around the courts a lot more before the Supreme Court gets involved.