I personally think S.1145 was brought down by the unions’ recognition that it would effect job creation and the subsequent fear by S.1145’s backing politicians that they might actually lose too many votes and be held especially accountable for their actions by the voters during an election occurring in a recession (see, e.g., http://www.docs.piausa.org/PIAUSA/08-04-07-PIAUSA-NYT-ad-patent-save-the-patent-v3-right-page.pdf from Monday’s New York Times).
IPBiz notes that the squeeze from the left with the gambit of the unions ["patent reform means lost US jobs"] and from the right with the general dissatisfaction among Republicans is creating real problems for Leahy and Reid. As the economy goes south (subprime mortgages, escalating food, energy prices...), the labor union play looks threatening. Every day Leahy fails to act drops the probability of S.1145 action.
Why Hillary doesn't follow the union lead and use the patent reform micro-example to go after Obama, who is aligned with the pro-reform IT outsourcers is a mystery. A hanging curveball is coming right down the pike, and Hillary is looking at someone in the stands eating a hot dog.
For some other points about the strange patent reform discussion of 2007-2008:
Kennedy on patent reform: "it comes down to who has more lobbyists."
The negative universe of patent reform
from Reuters, April 11 -->
"It's really bad," said Carl Lantz, interest rate strategist at Credit Suisse in New York. "We are definitely in recession territory. It confirms what we already know now, that we are in a consumer-led recession, and it's going to be a pretty protracted one."
In more bad news for the economy, the Labor Department said U.S. import prices rose a more-than-expected 2.8 percent in March as petroleum prices jumped 9.1 percent.
U.S. export prices rose 1.5 percent during the month, also more than expected and the largest monthly gain on record, as prices for farm and food products continued to rise.