Talk:Exponential tree

Xerox patent
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
Three reasons:
 * 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)