and the publishers sought more control over the pricing of their products.4.5.1.2 Technical collaboration Technical collaboration is a more collaborative form of interop. It usually involves some form of IP licensing at its foundation, but the cooperation goes beyond the mere granting of IP licences. Often, technical collaboration is an approach used by companies at different levels of the value chain, in order to improve the user’s experience. A significant example of this is the level of cooperation required for many mobile payment systems, which require technical cooperation between retailers, device manufacturers, payment processors, and banks.Technical collaboration shares many of the advantages of IP licensing and generally appears to be an effective, efficient, and flexible approach toward increased levels of interoperability. However, some scenarios entail fewer such advantages. One of these is a situation in which the collaborators grow so large that coordination and monitoring costs become too difficult or expensive. This challenge has occurred in mobile money markets in some countries. As a recent ITU report described, “In a country with just a few mobile payment operators, it might be possible to do this bilaterally or multilaterally. However, as the number of operators increases, the relationships between them, and the costs of the solution, grow exponentially.”41 Like other approaches, technical collaboration can also be misused to achieve anti-competitive objectives not aligned with increased interoperability goals.4.5.1.3 Standards and open standards Standards can be characterized as a collaborative effort to achieve higher levels of interoperability. Open standards have gained much attention in recent times, although the exact definition remains controversial. One interpretation is that open standards (a) are approved by formalized committees open to participation by all parties, and (b) are accessible to the public free of charge.The healthcare field provides examples of both open and less-open standards, sometimes within the same organization or institution. One example is the ITU-T Focus Group on machine-to-machine interoperability, which focuses largely on e-health applications such as remote patient monitoring. It has released an open API and several free reports in order to support the ITU’s standardization work.42 By contrast, the ITU has used a more hybrid approach in the development of ITU-T H.810 standards for the interoperability of personal health systems. In that case, the ITU partnered with Continua Alliance, a non-profit organization that charges for access to its standards.43 Standards hold great potential to achieve high degrees of interoperability, but this approach also can limit overall effectiveness. Open standards initiatives are a purely voluntary effort, and anecdotal evidence suggests that companies with patent portfolios might easily interfere or even block such initiatives. Furthermore, standard-setting processes are often complex, time-consuming, and relatively expensive when compared to unilateral or bilateral approaches. Arguably, their cost efficiency is, therefore, comparatively low.With regard to flexibility, standards reflect the characteristics of the specific environment in which they are intended to operate. This means that a standard may represent a snapshot of technology development at a particular point in time. Depending on the speed at which technology develops, a standard based on outdated assumptions might restrictively peg future developments to historical limitations. 4.5.2 Regulatory approaches (state actors)As Figure 4.5 illustrates, Governments and regulators can also pursue interoperability through a variety of different approaches, from unilateral to more collaborative ones. These activities also vary significantly with regard to how specifically they address interoperability. On one side are approaches such as mandating standards or requiring the disclosure of interoperability information. On the other side are interventions or laws that are more generic and are aimed at increasing transparency or competition but do not address interop specifically. Particularly careful consideration is needed in interop-specific interventions, while the application of general laws and doctrines is much less problematic. 112 Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2016