The big companies will get what they want...if it is pushed and not fully understood.

They do not want this, however, they "agreed on language that instructs judges to provide juries with guidance on damages awards based on existing case law, often referred to as a gatekeeper function."...."...where, "Qualcomm and Tessera, praised the change on damages"

They do want this, "amendment by the three senators to adopt language from a former bill that passed the House of Representatives in 2007 regarding ways to challenge a patent after it is granted, known as post-grant review"...."...where, "Qualcomm and Tessera", have concerns for the post-grant issue. With that, there are other issues similar to this that are not mentioned in this writeup.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the trios changes on post-grant reviews would "be impossible [for the patent office] to administer" and would amount to "a death sentence for patents" owned by small inventors who lack the resources to defend their work. "It could cause a train wreck at the agency and hurt the patent owners we want to protect," Kyl added.

Keep in mind, Qualcomm is not a small company, where they have interests to protect and may or may not be sincere in their position in this process. It will cause a train wreck for up and coming inventors, where there will be no reason to invent anything, why bother?

The way I see it, the big companies are agreeing to the gatekeep function, while noting it to be detrimental to their prosperity and being favorable for small companies , however, other issues that are negotiated for regarding that consideration will set a dam in front of it, where the gatekeeper will not be a problematic issue for the big companies.

doni