Is H.R.1907 Patent Reform that We Want?

Ken Hendrickson N8KH asks: "Slashdot readers are involved with software, and recognize great abuses of the US Patent system as it has been applied to software. We want the patent system to be reformed. (This means we want software patents to be invalidated and no longer issued. We are probably also highly suspect of even hardware patents, as they are a government granted monopoly). Some people don't want the patent system to be changed. John D. Trudel is one of them. He rants against what he calls the "internationalization" of the U.S. patent system." Sounds like HR 1907 is just what we need...or is it? (More)

"What is Trudel ranting against? I wasn't quite sure after reading his pages. Is his only gripe the publishing of patent applications 18 months after filing, whether or not the patent is granted? What does Trudel stand to gain or lose? Might Trudel have a hidden agenda against other provisions in H.R.1907?

What kind of "reform" are Trudel's antagonists proposing? I couldn't determine this from his rants either. (I haven't read H.R.1907 in its entirety, because frankly, I don't have time.) What do Trudel's antagonists stand to gain or lose?

What are the implications?

Could Trudel be right? Will the "reform" usher us into a world where US inventors and corporations are hurt by foreign concerns? I don't see how.

• If a patent is granted, the patent holder has his US monopoly, even if foreigners could read his application before the monopoly was bestowed.
• If a patent wasn't granted, it can't be argued that the patent application filer has lost anything because the idea was either: prior art, not innovative, or obvious. (Damn bloody obvious with how the PTO grants patents even for obvious methods!)

So what are the real issues?

What does it all mean?"