If the MPEG-LA's fees are neither <i>onerous or excessive</i> then why was there widespread industry revolt when they were introduced? Didn't that one company have a very public falling out with them about it? What was their name again? Oh yes, Apple:<p>"<i>Apple Computer has rejected proposed licensing terms for the emerging MPEG-4 video standard, leaving the future of its QuickTime multimedia technology in limbo.<p>At a company-sponsored conference on Tuesday, Apple previewed the latest versions of its QuickTime digital media player and new QuickTime broadcast technology, both built on MPEG-4. But the company said those products will remain grounded indefinitely as it seeks to change MPEG-4 licensing terms unveiled last month by a key licensing clearinghouse.<p>The terms, set by MPEG LA on 31 January, have prompted a wave of criticism in streaming circles for including a per-minute streaming charge that adds up to 2 cents an hour for video clips delivered in the MPEG-4 format."</i><p>from <i>Apple's MPEG-4 snub may halt QuickTime</i><p><a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,2104282,00.htm" rel="nofollow">http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,2104282,00.htm</a><p>If Apple can fight against stupid licence terms why can't Mozilla?