This means that the patent that Xerox has on using hyperbolic geometry to lay out trees encompasses prior art and is invalid.
Has the Patent Office or a court ruled it invalid, or is this just somebody's personal legal opinion? Josh Cherry 16:06, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since nobody has come forth to defend this, I have removed what seems to be the writer's personal opinion. If somebody important is publicly making this claim, we can put back something like "Xyz alledges that...." Josh Cherry 00:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why would I use an exponential tree?
It would be nice to see an example of an application of this kind of tree, and also some information on the efficiency of it. --Bernard François 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This article may require clean-up
- The illustration could be done a lot better, I think it's awfull.
- Probably the link under the see also section of the article should be a reference. It's not a page within wikipedia.
- It says something about the dimension of a tree, while later it talks about nodes having different dimensions. I don't understand this. I added a request for more information on this on the talk page of regular trees. If any explanation would be added there, there should be a link to it on this page. --Bernard François 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)