Could someone point me to a more in-depth legal analysis of this bill? The text of it is here. It looks to me like it is mostly about replacing vague parts of the U.S. code with regards to patents with more explicit instructions, and one of these instructions even seems to give courts explicit permission to judge whether an invention is eligible for a patent rather than taking this power away:

IN GENERAL.—In an action brought for infringement under this title, the court, at any time, may determine whether an invention or discovery that is a subject of the action is eligible for a patent under this section, including on motion of a party when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Furthermore, one really nice thing that this bill does is that it makes it clear that if the invention or discovery solely involves a process or material occurring naturally with no modification--a human gene being explicitly called out--then it is explicitly ineligible for a patent.

To be clear, though, I am not a legal expert, which is why it would be great if someone would provide an in-depth analysis of exactly where the problem is rather than just saying that the bill is bad.

Patent trolls are one thing, but I bet Amazon and Google are waiting with their finger on the submit button for "gimme monopoly rights"

The U.S destroying its own economy. Who could've asked for a better Christmas present? With Trump at the helm next year, it's only a question of time before trade partners tell the U.S to fuck off and they stop ignoring decisions like these.

Anti Commercial-AI license

Maybe I should patent breathing

Why is a .ai link the source instead of EFF