There's some good news and some bad news.  The good news is that "counsels" has been dropped from the bill.  (No copy of the bill is available at the moment.)

The bad news is that there are strong rumors that the bill will be introduced today or tomorrow, that there will be a hearing about it on Thursday or Friday, and that it will go to the floor quickly on a unanimous consent request -- a fast track.

For those who suggest that patent "inducement" claims haven't brought western civilization to a halt, three responses.

1.  You're right.

2.  It's much much harder to prove patent infringement than copyright infringement.  You have to be serious to bring a patent claim.  You have to hire experts.  It's a big deal.  Copyright infringement claims, by contrast, are a piece of cake to bring.  So the risk of unpredictable consequences to innovation etc. from secondary copyright "inducement" claims are higher -- because there will likely be more of them.

3.  Sony depends in part on a borrowed patent analysis (staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing uses), so you may be claiming that the INDUCE act is just one more borrowing.  But what you'd be doing is effectively overruling Sony by this much broader borrowing -- and creating liability rather than limiting it.  Different.

This proposed bill is part of a concerted effort [pdf] to make sure that P2P software is viewed as illegal stuff.