Our legal team at work (an e-commerce player with 9-figure revenues that's raised 8-figure rounds over the years), are currently looking at React's PATENT claus

Our legal team at work (an e-commerce player with 9-figure revenues that's raised 8-figure rounds over the years), are currently looking at React's PATENT clause. There is a dependency tree here around whether you currently (or plan to in the future) have any patents. If you don't and you never do, then how can Facebook infringe it in a way whereby you'd want to sue? And then there is the cost of suing. We seem to be reckoning it would cost around $1m to start a serious action against FB, so what does the cost of replacing React look like in that sort of scale? We've costed that, in broad strokes. So on paper, it all looks like we're fine, right? But... But... Here's where they take pause: The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly [...] Subsidiaries? We don't have any of those. "Corporate affiliates"? What does that mean? Oh, it's anybody who owns at least one share in us, or we own one share in them. Wait. What? We have business angels, founders, multiple VC firms and other investors. Do any of them have patents that Facebook might infringe on? What about future investors or people who we might want to be acquired by? Could we have an acquisition blocked because the potential buyer has a war chest of patents they value? And "agent" means external law firms too, right? So if any of the companies we use for advice on an on-going basis get involved in any patent action, what does that mean for us? Suddenly it becomes this huge sprawling mess. Risk aversion is important when you're dealing with a company that is already carrying a 9-figure valuation. We're trying to find a way around it. As an engineer I brought it up with Legal because I want clarity for colleagues and myself: we want a green flag. Unfortunately, in doing that, we may have brought enough scrutiny to it that they are going to tell us to stop using it. If/when that happens we'll talk about it and share that information. In the meantime, we continue to use it, but we're doing so with caution, and we accept there may be a re-tooling cost.