As ZDNet reports, Watson won the round with $4,400, while Ken Jennings had $3,400 and Brad Rutter brought in $1,200.

The game has been in the planning stages for years, and has been written about several times. The New York Times covered IBM’s work in a big story in 2009.

The whole point of teaching a computer to play “Jeopardy” lies in the complex computing work that’s required to make a machine understand natural human language and detect the same subtle cues of human speech that humans learn to understand over the years. “Jeopardy” questions can involve clever turns of phrases, riddles and other tricks of speech that can confuse a computer in ways that a game of chess won’t. Computers have already defeated humans at chess, you’ll recall, and it was an IBM computer that did it.

After the “Jeopardy” match, the human players said Watson had one distinct advantage: It doesn’t get psyched out. If another player wins a string of questions, it doesn’t suffer from the emotional response of losing confidence.

I don’t usually watch “Jeopardy,” or any game show for that matter. But I’m looking forward to seeing how the real game turns out.

Below is a rough video by ZDNet’s Larry Dignan, who attended the round.

Evidently the Taiwanese hardware manufacturer took one look at Palm’s (PALM) books and decided an acquisition isn’t worth the trouble. “There just weren’t enough synergies to take the deal forward,” a source close to talks between the two companies told Reuters.

And so speculation about a potential acquirer is turning elsewhere. Lenovo seems to be the leading candidate at the moment. The company has big aspirations in China’s mobile market and a penchant for making big foreign acquisitions. It purchased IBM’s (IBM) ThinkPad business a few years back and tried to buy Packard Bell, so why not Palm?

Well, for one thing, Palm’s market share is too small to be of real benefit to Lenovo. For another, the company is already committed to Google’s (GOOG) Android for the OS to run on its soon-to-debut Lephone.

Finally, Palm’s asking price is said to be around $1.3 billion. Lenovo had about $2.4 billion in net cash reserves on hand the end of 2009. Would Lenovo really spend more than half of that on Palm, a company whose books frightened off HTC? As Larry Dignan writes at ZDNet, it’s hard to make the case that it should.

So if not Lenovo, then who?

How about Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)? With handheld sales that fell by more than half year-over-year in its first quarter, HP is surely looking for a way to revive them and capture a larger portion of the important mobile market. Acquiring Palm could be a good way to do it. Here’s why:

• Yes, HP is a Windows shop with, no doubt, big plans for Windows Phone 7, but that OS will likely figure in devices aimed at the enterprise market. With Palm’s assets, HP could target the consumer space as well.
• Palm’s webOS is scalable. HP could use it in other devices–tablets, for example–differentiating them from those of competitors using open-source operating systems like Android.
• In Palm, HP would gain a turnkey smartphone division–a venture with a slick smartphone OS, a deep mobile patent portfolio, a talented R&D team, the beginnings of an app ecosystem and established carrier relationships.
• Palm and HP both call Silicon Valley home, and former Palm exec Todd Bradley currently heads up HP’s Personal Systems Group. Obviously, there would still be integration risks, but there are clear synergies in culture and location that would at least temper them a bit.
• HP has some $14 billion in cash on hand, more than enough to cover Palm’s rumored $1.3 billion asking price with plenty left over.

That seems to me to be a pretty compelling case. Has it been made inside HP? I can’t say for sure, though we may find out in the weeks ahead.

Reports claim that Microsoft Live Search, once known as Windows Live Search and, prior to that as MSN Search, will henceforth be known as…

Bing.

Which is pretty much what we’ve expected all along. Just what form Bing will take is another matter entirely. Will it simply be Live Search updated and recast? Or will it involve something more? Like perhaps that long-rumored deal with Yahoo (YHOO) BoomTown’s been talking about? Or what if, ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley speculates, “Microsoft and Yahoo announce some kind of jointly-managed company that will trade ad sales for search engine placement. This ‘MicroHoo’ won’t be a merged Microsoft-Yahoo. Instead it will be some kind of ad/search entity.” What if, indeed. We may find out later this week.

UPDATE: Interesting. ZDNet’s Larry Dignan points to a report from Jeffries analyst Katherine Egbert that suggests Microsoft is indeed preparing for some sort of joint venture or acquisition. A quick excerpt:

“It’s also possible that Microsoft could debut a partnership or make an acquisition of some type that will bolster its online search presence. The software giant registered an LLC Corp. in Delaware last week, a move often made in advance of acquisitions or joint ventures. The registration gave rise to widespread speculation that Microsoft would acquire Citrix since the name of the LLC is somewhat similar to Microsoft’s code name for Citrix. While that’s possible, the timing of the registration and recent debt raise indicate that it might be more likely Microsoft uses the LLC to form a partnership that will boost the amount of traffic flowing through its search engine, perhaps through a partnership with Yahoo! or others.”

BoomTown read a ton of the various columns reacting to the Associated Press’s announcement of a new initiative to–as near as I can tell–stop the Internet from being the Internet.

I tease, as it is clearly a lot more complicated than that. But AP board Chairman and MediaNews group CEO Dean Singleton seemed very exercised about his mission to “protect news content from misappropriation.”

It’s going to surely be an interesting debate, throwing even more light on both the way the Web has impacted media companies, but also just how valuable those companies are (or are not–for an interesting take on that, see this excellent piece by ZDNet blogger Larry Dignan).

The winner for the most curious quote yesterday, though, was from an interview Singleton gave to paidContent.org’s Staci Kramer about new models to come.

Said Singleton: “Print is still the meat. Online’s the salt and pepper.”

I would actually say online is increasingly the sizzle.

But what Singleton left out, especially given the financial trouble his company is currently in, was far more important–it’s the consumer doing the grilling.

Thus, it goes without saying that the meat could be in danger of being a tad well done if media companies are not careful in how they handle this new attack on how those consumers prefer to get their news.

In the meantime, here is a very pertinent–the Internet is good at that stuff–and very funny video of an “eat your steak” commercial:

Last week, one of the things that struck me about the coverage of the two main tech conferences devoted to start-ups, DEMOfall and TechCrunch50, was the almost complete lack of discussion–or, more appropriately, worry–about the troubled economy.

This, even though the subprime mortgage crisis remains in full swing, along with the continuing turmoil around the stability of Wall Street financial firms, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also, let’s not forget those sky-high gas prices.

Still, one entrepreneur after another got up and spun stories of companies built on fancy new ad models to come or the more hidden premise that they would get bought by a bigger fish up the food chain like Google (GOOG) or Microsoft (MSFT).

But as I wrote last week, all those stocks are suffering, and those companies are likely to be retrenching rather than expanding.

In fact, at an interview with Internet entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel at TC50, he called Web companies undervalued. (See my video interview with Thiel here last November, in which he says a lot of the same stuff.)

As he told me almost a year ago, Thiel repeated his contention that the technology sector was still not in a bubble.

Well, perhaps not, but that’s actually because most companies in Web 2.0–despite their massive valuations over the last few years–aren’t going to have the chance get frothy and light enough to become so poppable.

Instead, most will likely fizzle away quietly, with no exits in sight as the economy weakens and puts a vise grip on companies that cannot survive the very tough financial road ahead.

That means the popular Web 2.0 maxim of “growth before profits” is in for a very bumpy ride.

It’s going to be especially true after this weekend’s latest round of bad news–the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch, the impending crisis at banks like Washington Mutual.

And with more to come, I could not help but remember the well-known political phrase used in the 1992 presidential race by the Clinton team: It’s the economy, stupid.

And that’s true even here in Silicon Valley, where the sun always seems to shine, even as the clouds gather.

(Also, here is a very good piece on the topic by CNET’s Larry Dignan on some more details of the impact on tech firms, specifically on selling products to financial firms.)

Paul Kedrosky at Infectious Greed says Yahoo has bought itself some more time–and litigation:

I think what has largely happened here is we have bought time and lawsuits. If I was a Yahoo shareholder I’d be seriously pissed. Microsoft pulled us out of our recent share price slump, but management was too cutesy and territorial to take the money and run. My guess is that Yahoo’s share price falls quickly on Monday, and then finds support in the low-$20, a price reflecting a belief that this is not yet over. Only then, once some key shareholders pipe up and once Yahoo has to defend itself against the inevitable lawsuits, will we know how likely it is that its brazen move sticks.”

Mini-Microsoft says Microsoft’s decision to walk restores his faith in the company:

Out of this had best come a new reorganization of our online properties. Out with the old already. We had reached a bet-the-company point in going after Yahoo to make up for the lack of performance out of MSN/Search/AdCenter in an attempt to leapfrog forward. I think we need to hang up on the good-enough consensus culture for a while and put in a strategy czar to get things done vs. expecting something to arise out of the dysfunctional ecosystem we currently have.”

Over at ZDNet Larry Dignan opines that there are better ways for Microsoft to spend its $44.6 billion:

Windows needs work. Vista has image problems. The operating system is under attack from multiple fronts and needs to become more lightweight and modular. Windows is what made Microsoft and there are serious questions about its future. The biggest knock on this entire Microhoo saga: It was a distraction that could take focus away from the real cash cow. If you think the negotiations were a distraction, just imagine how dealing with regulators and integrating Yahoo would have diverted attention. Despite all the Microhoo chatter, Windows 7 (all resources) may be the thing that determines whether Microsoft stays relevant or not.”

And the Seattle Times’ Brier Dudley agrees:

Thank goodness the tide finally turned and Ballmer came to his senses. Imagine what Microsoft could do just with that “extra” $5 billion. Ballmer could buy most of the Web start-ups in Seattle and Silicon Valley, plus a few biotechs and energy ventures for good measure. Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will now go down in history as the obstinate founder who blew a chance to milk the world’s richest software company at the peak of its midlife angst.”

Meanwhile, Mathew Ingram says Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang’s days are numbered:

In my view, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang has gone way beyond fiduciary duty and has been effectively blocking this deal in any way possible. I expect to see the stock tank, and deservedly so. If I were a shareholder, I would be calling for Yang’s head. This deal was by far the best opportunity the company had to achieve some value.”

And over at Valleywag, Owen Thomas says Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s days may be numbered as well:

Emails are flying out of Redmond with this speculation: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s botched $50 billion bid for Yahoo could mean the end of his career. While Microsoft’s board reportedly gave the CEO considerable leeway in handling the deal, his dithering approach and his failure to sell the deal both to Yahoo’s board and Microsoft’s own executives don’t reflect well on the sweaty screamer. The only problem: Microsoft has no obvious successor for Ballmer.”

At paidContent, Rafat Ali suggests some other business partners with which Microsoft might ally:

One would have to believe that Facebook will be back in play. Microsoft is already the advertising provider for the social-networking service, and also owns a small part in it. This would give it a strong toehold in the social-media space and help it experiment more with new advertising models, among other things.
Then, to block and isolate Yahoo further, AOL’s buyout would be a possibility. Time Warner (TWX) is certainly interested in spinning it out, and is still speaking to Yahoo on a combination. Google (GOOG) is a 5% shareholder of AOL, so things might have to work around that.
Certainly, if Diller really wants to get rid of IAC’s (IACI) disparate companies in this spinoff, then Microsoft could be a ready buyer.
The other smaller possibility includes CNET (CNET), though it’s hard to see synergies between the two companies.
Further down the money chain would be tons of other companies like Twitter, Digg, Meebo and any other $50 million to $500 million company.”

CNET’s Stephan Shankland wonders if an ad deal with Google is really a viable option for Yahoo:

But relying on Google for ads, even in a limited way, is in effect admitting defeat in a key part of Yahoo’s business. Even if it gets more money from the higher revenue per click generated by Google’s ad technology, relying on its biggest adversary raises the possibility that a central part of the company’s business could be hollowed out.”

BoomTown’s Kara Swisher agrees:

While Yahoo might not have wanted to be acquired by Microsoft, its alternative to goose its revenues by relying on Google in an outsourced online search-ad deal is one it might regret even more if struck.”

At CenterNetworks, Alan Stern suggests Yahoo shack up with AOL:

I’ve said for years now (many years before CN) that Yahoo and AOL needed to merge. It would have been a mega-merger years ago but would still be huge even today. I touched on it a year ago on CN. Both AOL and Yahoo are consumer-facing Internet companies. Microsoft is not and to try to just plug Yahoo would be very difficult. While there is a good bit of overlap with AOL and Yahoo, the ability to maximize the mainstream is the key. AOL is looking to launch a large number of content sites this year, they have Platform-A for advertising and the number one IM client out there. Don’t forget Bebo as well. Yahoo brings some semi-powerful social apps and a huge content network along with some leading Web apps.”

While Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget feels Yahoo should move ahead with its Google outsourcing deal:

It allows Yahoo to focus on businesses it can win, instead of throwing money at a war it has already lost.”

And, finally, DealBook wonders if Microsoft is going to walk away from the biggest deal of its 33-year history.

It certainly appears that way at the moment. Which means there’s really only one thing for certain come Monday: Yahoo’s shares will sink deep into the mud, and Yang and Co. will be hard pressed to placate investors. Seems that in the end, the only so-called “sacred cow” Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang will slaughter is his company’s share price …”