That's the definition of toxic.
That's the definition of toxic.
In more concrete terms, if you see some project is licensed under Apache 2.0, then you can still be sued for using it, because while you may have a guarantee that its contributors won't sue you, it doesn't make anybody else's patents go away.
In slightly more concrete terms than that, if Project X causes Facebook to be sued by Corp Y because Facebook is using that project, then Facebook has no protection if it is not a Corp Y project nor have they ever contributed to it.
In real life, Corp Y is Yahoo, who sued Facebook several years ago on a bunch of patent-related matters. Facebook then went on a tear building up a war chest and crafting the PATENTS text so that it could never happen again.
So if fb just uses something patented by my company in one of their products, just uses it without my company's permission, but doesn't sue, what is my company's recourse?
What is my company's leverage or incentive to get them to pay my company for a license?
You assume an intent but the intent is unclear here. React is an incredibly attractive technical product. As a web dev at my company I really want to use it, but had I not realized its strange underhanded bidirectional patent grant and evangelized it I could have boxed my company into a corner, forcing it to decide to sacrifice our React web infrastructure or defend our patents.
Spreading misinformation about the danger only serves to undermine the OSS community's response.