If the bill was just what the Times is portraying it to be, it does sound terrible. However, the poorly-written article seems to grossly misrepresent the bill

If the bill was just what the Times is portraying it to be, it does sound terrible. However, the poorly-written article seems to grossly misrepresent the bill in favor of a scare story. Reading the bill summary and Patently-O's run-down, there are some points of concern, but in general it looks like a net positive. Simplified and enhanced third-party prior art and review procedures sound like a huge win. Bill summary here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23