This case study articulates the approach and process ifC takes when acting as an agnostic intermediary between industry participants in Tanzania to design rule sets for different types of transactions, often referred to as operating rules or automated clearing house (ACH) agreements or payment flows related to mobile money interoperability. Standards as natural monopolies: In this second group of cases, there is no dominant company at the beginning, but the economic benefits of a (technical) standard and therefore interoperability are so important that competition between standards is not sustainable. In the end, there should be only one uniform (technical) standard (natural monopoly). Due to the economic advantages of (monopolistic) technical standards, their collective establishment within the framework of standards bodies (OSS) has long been promoted by public policy. Important examples in the digital economy are telecommunications standards or the DVD standard, and we have seen claims that a data-driven economy (such as the Internet of Things) needs new technical standards to ensure data communication in highly networked systems.  Although these exceptions to intellectual property law appear to open up a different and market-oriented path to interoperability, it is not entirely clear to what extent these exceptions are useful in practice to overcome the obstacles posed by commercial non-interoperability strategies. Obviously, exceptions do not help even if the corresponding software is not available to other market players, but only works on the servers of the software manufacturer (called Application Service Providing – ASP). Second, software owners often engage in obseceration of code to hinder decompilation. Obfuscation of the code involves a deliberate modification of the relevant code to prevent it from being comprehension.
 In principle, it will not completely exclude decompilation, but it can make it considerably more difficult and economically unattractive for all intents and purposes.  In addition to hindering competitors` decompilation efforts, such a practice may also constitute a prima facie legitimate security measure.  It cannot therefore simply be prohibited.  Finally, intellectual property exceptions have been criticized as being interpreted as too narrow.  In this context, the Commission Staff Working Document on Interoperability examined whether interoperability information should be protected by copyright.  A number of scientists have come out in favour of a general permit for reverse engineering.  However, the rightholder`s legitimate interest in maintaining a competitive advantage is protected by the fact that the redevelopment of complex interface information is time-consuming and costly for competitors. .