You could release your code with a less permissive license (say excluding companies with a 1 trillion dollar market cap) so they at least have to play ball with you.
The GPLv3 might be enough to do that, for some. It was sufficient concern for Apple, who dumped Samba, bash, and gcc.
Microsoft's CBL/Mariner distribution of Linux would be the first place to look for GPLv3, and and impacts upon their patent portfolio (I haven't read up on the patent provisions).
"Apple, a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang, which is another FOSS compiler but is under a permissive license. LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3. The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative."
LLVM is also more modular. The front-end and back-ends are well decoupled and it’s possible to work on them separately. Useful for a company that has to target two CPU architectures.
Microsoft's CBL/Mariner distribution of Linux would be the first place to look for GPLv3, and and impacts upon their patent portfolio (I haven't read up on the patent provisions).
"Apple, a user of GCC and a heavy user of both DRM and patents, switched the compiler in its Xcode IDE from GCC to Clang, which is another FOSS compiler but is under a permissive license. LWN speculated that Apple was motivated partly by a desire to avoid GPLv3. The Samba project also switched to GPLv3, so Apple replaced Samba in their software suite by a closed-source, proprietary software alternative."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#...