The whole patents kerfuffle with Facebook was about a larger issue with their patent grant. Critically the issue was that it practically stopped you from suing Facebook for any patent issues (not just those granted for React, which would be more like the standard reactive termination clause), including counter-suits. Here is the key text from their patent license:

    The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
    for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or
    other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or
    inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or
    affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, (ii) by any
    party if such claim arises in whole or in part from any software, product or
    service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not
    such claim is related to the Software, or (iii) by any party relating to the
    Software; or (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or
    unenforceable.

And so that was a fairly justified reaction IMHO. Funnily enough, it seems that the license written by Supabase has the same issue -- I suspect this might just be the "default approach" for patent lawyers.

However, MIT has _no_ patent protections and is strictly worse than almost any license with some patent protections for users included. The modern landscape of software patent trolls is far less insane than it was in the 90s but I would really think twice about using something that is likely patented under a license other than Apache-2.0, MPLv2, or GPLv3.