I doubt anyone has noticed, but I've silent in this discussion.  It's because I have a contrary opinion from virtually everyone here.

While some aspects are troubling, the bulk of it I see as a non-issues.  Examples:

Patents open to continued scrutiny until the day they expire.  They aren't now?

And from the post to which this replies:

"....award damages based solely on the "contribution" that the patent in question made to a product, unless the patent holder could show the patent was the "predominant" reason for the product's market demand".  Doesn't this appear to be a fair approach?  Could this not enable patent holders to obtain greater damages amounts than in the current system?  What is the current system based on other than a whim of a jury?

"....limit findings of "willful" infringement, which require violators to pay triple damages, by placing new obligations on patent holders to show the alleged infringers were aware they were copying the inventions".  I don't have a big problem with this.  Patent holders should be dilligent in enforcing their patents, which means being on the constant look-out for products that may infringe; find suspects, issue certified letters to these suspects (i.e., varifiable "awareness").  Not dilligent?  Then no treble damages.

The troubling things are those that may indeed weaken the US Patent system.  All corporations should be very concerned about any loss of rights in a global marketplace, even (mostly?) the big corporations. Many countries businesses are notorious for blatantly ignoring patent and copyright laws.  The worst is probably Israel, believe it or not (look at ANY Israeli weapon system).  China, which sells those products into the US marketplace?   Big US corporations should be feel very threatenned by this. 

And if the US Patent system is crippled, what are the other effects?  I wrote a novel awhile back about how our GNP and foreign trade metrics are both based on things from the 1930's.  They were developed by a team of brainy business people at the request of FDR so he would have some way of seeing results, positive or negative, of his "anti-depression" initiatives.  Was US business spending tons of money on R&D at the time?  No.  Lots of resources spent today, but not measured in GNP.  Was the US exporting IP via licenses all over the world?  No, we were exporting food, oil and finished goods (all things that today we import).  IP licensing is not considered in determining trade balances - only those things worthy of measure in 193X.

This is why we see a positive stock market and an economy that is much stronger than one would expect when looking at GNP and trade.  The things that matter today are not included in the measurements.  So there is actually more "balance" than we're led to believe. 

But damage the strength of US IP protection, and what happens to that current "balance".  That's the scary part.  So my fear is that, regardless of any input or influence by US big business (which should recognize the risk TO THEM if patent rights, THEIR patent rights, are weakenned), the politicians considering the proposals are not witty enough to grasp the above, and may amend us to oblivion.

But I again say that what I've read about the proposed changes don't look to me to be weakening the situation to any great degree. But, except for most of the above, I acknowledge that I speak in ignorance of all the nuances.

SGE