So speaking as the guy responsible for Google's opensource-licensing for a long time (i've finally been able to divest myself of most of it :P):
You are right in a sense, but Google/MS also take more risk to do so.
Google did also try something not quite like this, but in the same vein.
The initial webm license terminated both patents and copyright if you sued over infringement. (Apache, et al just terminate patent licenses. You could still use the software if it had no patents).
The practical upshot you couldn't use that software if you sued over infringement.
This was done, of course, because of the state of the video codec world.
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on who you ask) despite being okay with it prior to release (IE we asked, ran it by the a lot of folks, etc), certain partners later decided they weren't okay with it because it wasn't GPLv2 (but was GPLv3) compatible.
So we changed it.
The point of all this is that:
License innovation by itself is not a bad thing. Needs change of communities change over time, including open source.
IMHO, innovation in this space needs to be done for a good reason, and needs to be done collaboratively, if you want any chance at success.
If you can answer, I have one question. My understanding is that Angular uses an MIT license, without any patent grant. I think this means that, if Google holds a patent that covers some mechanism used in Angular, and my company uses Angular, technically Google could sue me. Is this correct?
You are right in a sense, but Google/MS also take more risk to do so.
Google did also try something not quite like this, but in the same vein.
The initial webm license terminated both patents and copyright if you sued over infringement. (Apache, et al just terminate patent licenses. You could still use the software if it had no patents).
The practical upshot you couldn't use that software if you sued over infringement.
This was done, of course, because of the state of the video codec world.
Fortunately/unfortunately (depending on who you ask) despite being okay with it prior to release (IE we asked, ran it by the a lot of folks, etc), certain partners later decided they weren't okay with it because it wasn't GPLv2 (but was GPLv3) compatible.
So we changed it.
The point of all this is that: License innovation by itself is not a bad thing. Needs change of communities change over time, including open source. IMHO, innovation in this space needs to be done for a good reason, and needs to be done collaboratively, if you want any chance at success.