[olov]

Thanks for being specific. I agree that Facebook's termination clause is crafted to benefit Facebook more than should they have used similar language to Google's (or APL2.0). A less defensive patent grant would have been more generous.

But I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion though.

Scenario one: MYCOMP uses React in a product, decides to sue FB because FB uses the term "It's complicated" which MYCOMP was granted a patent for by the US patent office (the phrase was translated into a dual-ROT13-machine for the purpose of the patent application). MYCOMP had tried to get FB to pay them a reasonable license fee prior to suing but Facebook neglected. Now MYCOMP does not have a patent grant for their use of React any longer but isn't that then ~similar to as if React didn't have any patent grant to begin with (from a litigation perspective) - like most MIT and BSD licensed software we use? Had I been with BIGCORP I'd have asked the legal folks or our favorite patent attorney but now I'm solo so I'm throwing out the question here for further discussion.

Scenario two: FB sues UCOMP (who uses React in one of their products) for patent infringement of FB's "Send message from client to server" patent (nicely masqueraded in the patent application). UCOMP decides to counter-sue and we have a situation similar to scenario one.

[ralmidani]

When FB gives you a patent grant, it implies they have patents they could sue people over. An MIT or BSD copyright license alone could mean there are no patents to grant.