Negotiation.

3 ways of negotiating: hard soft and principled.
There are 3 ways of negotiation:
1. Hard: Where the party is not bothered about the other parties interest and stick to its original position. The vision here is only short term.
2. Soft: Where the party is very much concerned about the other parties interest and the probable losses due to the negotiation result. So it tries to minimize the loss of other party. The vision is long term and having a long term relationship.
3. Principled: Where the negotiation is based on the interest principle of both the parties and the outcome is towards win-win situation. This is the best method for the negotiation.

Positioning and interest
The positioning means for example when u go to purchase a gift item, shop keeper ask u to quote a price. You quote at 50$, then the shopkeeper puts his quote at 100$.
Now 50$ is your initial position and 100$ is shopkeepers initial position. Both you and shopkeepers has to change the initial position and has to come to a negotiating term.

Interest: Interest means the underlying reason why each party are taking their stand. Identifying the interest of each other helps to get the win- win situation for both the parties.
Take an example:
Two persons sitting in the room were arguing how much the window should open. Person A was arguing on the window should be 3/4th open while the person B was arguing on window should be 1/4th open. Both were firm on their stands and were not ready to compromise. Third person comes to room as a mediator and ask for their interest. Person A wanted the window to open because he wanted airflow in the room, Person B wanted the window to be closed because he was getting closed. So the the 3rd person closed the window of that room and went to the next room , and opened the window in that room. This solved both the problems. Both were winners.


BATNA: best alternative to negotiating agreement.
Always be prepared with the worst case scenario . This worst case scenario is called BATNA.

Options.
In negotiation, always keep multiple options for the opponent. So he will not get offended.

Case (as given by LN)
There are two pharmaceutical parties who wanted to procure a particular type of fruit from a farmer (This fruit is available only in brazil and only one farmer grows this). They both contacted the farmer for purchasing the fruit, but the farmer asked the two parties to negotiate with each other and come to conclusion who would do the purchasing.
The profile and intent of two parties given below:
1. Party 1: A pharmaceutical,
A pharmaceutical had developed a breakthrough in medicine, a drug for cancer. This medicine has a huge potential and was expected to sell for 100$. The one of the ingredient required was the extract of the seed of that particular fruit. This was the key ingredient.
2. Party 2: X pharmaceutical, X pharmaceutical had developed a drug for tuberculosis. Even this particular drug had the future prospect. One of the ingredients for the drug was the skin of the fruit. The drug was to be sold at 10$.
The above information was concealed from each other, and the only information available to A on X was that the X pharmacy is also need the fruit and developing some drug.
The information available to X on A was A is developing the drug for cancer. But both dint had any information on what actually needed by the other party.
The two parties are to sit for negotiation and come up with the solution.

One of the negotiation scenarios went this way:
The result: both parties dint able to recognize what actually needed by the other party. And the negotiation boiled down to setting up a joint venture with 50: 50 partnerships which would purchase the fruit from the farmer and then process it. The distribution was on a annual agreement basis.