PDF Summary:Bargaining with the Devil, by Robert Mnookin

When two heavyweight technology companies like IBM and Fujitsu disagree over intellectual property and software compatibility rights, the potential for conflict and heavy economic impacts is immense. In Bargaining with the Devil, Robert Mnookin provides an insider's view of the tense, decade-long negotiations he helped mediate between these fierce competitors.

More than just chronicling the legal dispute between IBM and Fujitsu, this book offers rare insight into the nuanced strategies and cultural challenges involved in high-stakes business negotiations. Mnookin outlines a unique process that blends mediation with arbitration, allowing companies to control outcomes through facilitated discussion rather than adversarial legal battles. His real-world case study demonstrates how vital communication, adaptability, and mutual understanding are when navigating complex business relationships.

(continued)...

Maintaining neutrality and independence within the facilitator's responsibilities.

From the beginning of the arbitration process, a crucial rule was set regarding the responsibilities and roles of the arbitrators. Individuals serving on international arbitration panels frequently behave more as advocates for the sides they represent than as unbiased decision-makers. The panel's chairperson has the authority to settle disputes, yet their role is often akin to that of a conventional judge, fostering dialogue between the disputing sides. The individuals involved, including legal representatives and arbitrators, often adopt a mindset fixated on victory or defeat. Mnookin was determined to prevent this occurrence. The committee was tasked with evaluating the matters without bias, acting as three independent judges, and reaching verdicts once it was ensured that all parties had ample opportunity to present their cases.

Fostering a shared comprehension among the adversarial corporations.

Mnookin committed to an approach centered on discovering resolutions instead of clinging to a mindset of victory or defeat. As the arbitration began, his grasp of the critical software technology central to the dispute was limited, a shortcoming apparent in the other arbitrators as well. The collective organized multiple sessions to deepen their understanding in this specific area of computer-based technology. The initial gatherings convened neutral technical experts tasked with aiding the committee's understanding of the core issues underlying the conflict. The lawyers would later educate the panel about the factual and legal issues involved in each of IBM’s specific claims against Fujitsu.

Creating a controlled setting to manage how Fujitsu would use the intellectual property initially developed by IBM.

The committee tasked with supervising the arbitration process was charged with the challenging responsibility of creating fresh guidelines to govern the behavior of the involved parties and prevent further occurrences of plagiarism. They devised an inventive system called the Secure Regime for Facilities to oversee potential disputes over proprietary knowledge in order to tackle this problem.

Determining the specific information available to Fujitsu.

The undertaking could arguably be considered the most formidable challenge. Fujitsu had every right to develop its own unique operating system software and middleware, which did not preclude them from making use of IBM's programming resources, since ensuring their software was compatible with IBM's technology was essential. The clandestine actions undertaken by Fujitsu against Hitachi demonstrated that simply forbidding replication, even with the possibility of severe consequences, was inadequate because it did not furnish Fujitsu's engineers with clear initial guidance on what constitutes duplication or how closely their work could mirror that concept. The legal representatives from each party recognized the complexities involved in the case, but determining the precise boundaries proved to be so difficult that they essentially circumvented this matter in the 1983 Agreements. Fujitsu asserted that it had not violated any contractual agreements.

Establishing rigorous controls and monitoring to guarantee adherence.

The panel delivered a comprehensive set of rules that fell into two distinct classifications. The opening segment, labeled "Instructions," precisely defined the characteristics of information from outside sources. The essential information for the seamless operation of Fujitsu's new software alongside IBM's operating system and middleware pertained to this system. The guidelines ultimately expanded to a length of approximately forty pages. The newly established regulations imposed strict guidelines that would dictate the future software development activities of Fujitsu.

The parties reached a consensus to establish a "Secured Facility" where a designated group from Fujitsu could scrutinize IBM's source code and carefully record the necessary "external information" onto forms that were precisely specified, following the guidelines provided. However, these individuals were not to take part in creating or executing any new initiatives related to the company, nor would they interact with those who were, and all documents they produced would undergo thorough scrutiny prior to their departure from the premises. The consequences for replicating IBM content beyond the permitted "externals" were not as harsh as those specified in the 1983 agreements.

Opting for a single, comprehensive payment instead of recurring royalty fees.

Every two years, Fujitsu was obligated to pay IBM a licensing fee for each installation as a form of compensation for the use of certain software, as stipulated by the 1983 Agreements. Fujitsu faced growing financial challenges alongside continuous disagreements regarding the point at which a "designated program" could be considered free from any plagiarism claims. To a mediator, the circumstances appeared as though they could ignite extended, needless disputes. IBM prioritized the continuation of its income stream, yet Mnookin pinpointed a more beneficial approach for all entities involved. The old designated programs would be removed from the fee schedule and Fujitsu, as well as its customers, would have the right to use those programs any way they wanted. In 1988, Fujitsu consented to make a one-time payment to IBM as compensation.

Establishing a process to resolve any conflicts that might emerge among the stakeholders involved.

The updated framework would preserve the panel's control. The panel will retain the power to resolve any disputes that arise within the framework of the new system, even after the termination of the relevance of the 1983 Agreements.

Steering clear of an unending sequence of legal disputes regarding specific allegations.

This innovative approach tackled a major challenge encountered throughout the bargaining phase. IBM's "Final Report" from 1985 alleged that more than eighty separate elements contained proprietary code within Fujitsu's system software, including middleware. IBM pursued remuneration for every instance of infringement. The committee's comprehensive review of each program could take several years to complete. The Regime for Secured Facilities placed a higher value on expected results rather than historical occurrences. Fujitsu would receive immunity from retrospective penalties for any actions prior to 1988, and IBM would be compensated, including for IBM programs that Fujitsu had not yet reviewed.

The companies must enter into discussions with a sincere purpose while maintaining established norms.

Jones and Mnookin viewed the sustained power to settle future disputes as an essential element in maintaining enduring peace. The newly established structure necessitated ongoing collaboration among the participating entities. Mnookin believed that without ongoing legal supervision, future disagreements might arise, possibly resulting in conflicts as acrimonious and harmful as past litigation.

Practical Tips

• You can foster a collaborative mindset in personal conflicts by focusing on mutual benefits rather than winning. When you find yourself in a disagreement with a friend or family member, propose a solution that addresses both parties' core concerns instead of trying to 'win' the argument. For example, if you're disputing who should use the car on a particular day, instead of insisting on your own need, suggest a schedule that accommodates both your and the other person's critical appointments.
• Develop a personal code of conduct for intellectual property use when borrowing from others' ideas. If you're working on a project that incorporates someone else's concepts, such as a community garden plan that uses a neighbor's design, establish clear guidelines with them on how you will use their ideas and ensure they are credited appropriately. You might agree on a one-time acknowledgment or a specific way to reference their contribution in any future iterations of the project.
• Enhance your understanding of technology to better engage in tech-related discussions and negotiations. If you're planning to purchase a new piece of technology, like a smartphone or a smart home device, take the time to learn about the technology's features and the company's policies on compatibility and upgrades. This knowledge will empower you to negotiate terms, such as warranty and support, more effectively with the seller, ensuring that your interests are protected.

Guiding intricate discussions between opposing businesses.

The dispute involving IBM and Fujitsu exemplifies the intense disputes that can arise among major companies over the ownership of intellectual property. The potential consequences were immense. Mutual suspicion was held by both parties. The emotional investment and unwavering conviction in their own viewpoints clouded clear thinking for both individuals involved. They exaggerated their conflicts without acknowledging their common goals.

Navigating the representation of the disagreement in public discussions and media coverage.

Mnookin emphasizes the importance of controlling the flow of information to the public as a key factor in the successful resolution of conflicts. In disputes of considerable importance, the parties involved aim to achieve more than mere victory; they strive to vindicate their actions in the public eye, which can lead to the sharing of statements and narratives that may be incomplete or potentially misleading. Additionally, the public narrative may be influenced by the actions of different third-party observers and stakeholders—such as friends, competitors, employees, and potential clients—who aim to steer the narrative in a direction that serves their own goals.

Strategically arranging media briefings to present a cohesive message

During the first press conference alongside Jones, Mnookin outlined their approach to resolving the dispute between IBM and Fujitsu. Both companies were very eager to present the news in a light that would help their own brand and its reputation for fairness. IBM aimed to protect its unique technological advancements by insisting on compensation from Fujitsu for past acts of copying, while Fujitsu stressed the need to maintain its ability to develop its own operating system software and middleware without restrictions. Jones and Mnookin approached the conversation with caution, cognizant of the potential threats to unity and with a firm intention to maintain an impartial stance.

The group's approach involved collaborating with public relations firms to expand the spread of their perspective.

The committee continued to wield significant authority within their domain. During the press conference, it was exclusively the arbitrators who were afforded the opportunity to speak to those present. Neither company's executives were allowed to answer questions, even those related to their individual perspectives. Mnookin discovered that the way a message is structured and conveyed can greatly influence how it is received and comprehended. He was not prepared to navigate the intricacies of overseeing the circumstances beyond a hypothetical setting. Prior to the press conference, he worked alongside Jones and sought advice from communication professionals to craft a statement that was fair and honest for everyone concerned.

Deciding to engage in legal action or to start negotiations requires a thorough evaluation of the related expenses and advantages.

Mnookin's goal was to prompt the parties involved to logically evaluate their goals and meticulously weigh the potential pros and cons of various alternatives. The endeavor extended beyond theoretical concepts and was directly connected to the conflict at hand. They were locked in intense competition, each endeavoring to capture a larger portion of the market. Mnookin aimed for a peaceful resolution, even though every party was prepared for a clash.

Assessing the goals and different options available to the parties involved, as well as their capacity to achieve a favorable outcome.

In assessing different strategies, Mnookin considered the objectives of the stakeholders, their contingency plans if talks failed, the costs incurred during the negotiation process, and the feasibility of formulating a pact that would better fulfill the needs of all involved than the current dispute. IBM's main priority was to protect its unique technological innovations and secure fair compensation for allowing Fujitsu to produce and market compatible system software and intermediary applications. Fujitsu steadfastly continued its efforts to create and promote its own interoperable software. The company had invested heavily in a business approach that relied on being interoperable with IBM offerings. If negotiations were unsuccessful, the outlook seemed particularly bleak without another plan in place.

When evaluating the potential for harm to relationships and the establishment of detrimental precedents

Mnookin persuaded all parties involved that a settlement advantageous to their objectives and the sustained health of the industry should include both historical grievances and potential future disputes. If these corporations continue to disagree, further repercussions may arise, including the creation of new benchmarks. A single legal dispute might trigger a cascade of comparable lawsuits from competitors across various related matters, plunging the computer sector into a period of unpredictability.

Cultural differences often add complexity to the process of negotiation.

Mnookin and his colleagues grappled with unforeseen intricacies that arose due to cultural differences during the course of negotiations. Conflict can erode trust, leading to a breakdown in rational dialogue and an increase in demonizing the other side. In this case, the mutual promises perceived by those engaged and the impact of judicial processes were influenced by psychological factors as well as differences in culture.

The value placed on maintaining commitments and the weight given to personal relationships differ among people.

Mnookin grappled with comprehending how Fujitsu's corporate traditions influenced their interpretation of the 1983 Agreements, contrasting with IBM's viewpoint. In Japanese corporate culture, the underlying spirit of a business alliance is often considered more important than the specific terms laid out in a contract, while American firms regard contracts as firm obligations. Japanese companies seldom engage in litigation. They prefer to resolve matters through informal dialogues, which are supported by a foundation of trust built up over time.

Companies from the United States and Japan frequently face challenges in communication and decision-making processes.

Cultural distinctions also permeated the process of mediation. Mnookin subsequently commented on the unique characteristics of the dialogue that occurred between the two parties throughout the negotiation process. IBM's legal team conducted its operations domestically. They casually conversed with Mnookin while informally evaluating his numerous suggestions. Whenever they needed clarification on a specific point or required additional information, they would offer their views, occasionally initiating a discussion among the group. They were characterized by their unwavering ability to make decisions. They possessed the power to swiftly make binding decisions on behalf of their client.

In this context, Fujitsu consistently stood apart. Mnookin's casual conversations with Fujitsu were carefully overseen by its American legal counsel, who made sure that their client's requirements were strictly followed. Mnookin introduced innovative ideas and actively solicited input from the Fujitsu representatives throughout the dialogue. The Japanese delegates typically replied with considerable deference, signaling their intention to carefully consider the proposal and furnish Mnookin with their input during a later gathering. During the entire meeting, not once was any feedback offered. Mnookin came to admire the way Fujitsu approached decision-making, recognizing that its collective strategy for addressing and settling disputes, particularly during challenging negotiations, was shaped by its Japanese heritage. Accustomed to quick and decisive action, this method appears to be rather inadequate.

Other Perspectives

• While controlling the flow of information to the public is important, transparency can sometimes be more beneficial in resolving conflicts as it may increase public trust and accountability.
• The influence of third-party observers might not always be negative; it can provide a more holistic view of the dispute and prevent either party from monopolizing the narrative.
• Strategic media briefings, while useful, can sometimes lead to a one-sided story if not balanced with open channels for questions and independent reporting.
• Collaboration with public relations firms could potentially bias the information presented to the public in favor of the hiring party, rather than ensuring a fair and balanced representation.
• Legal action, despite its costs, can sometimes be the most effective way to resolve disputes, especially when negotiations fail or when one party is intransigent.
• Cultural differences, though they can add complexity, can also bring diverse perspectives and innovative solutions to the negotiation process.
• The importance of maintaining commitments and personal relationships might vary between cultures, but it is not exclusive to any one culture; there can be significant variation within cultures as well.
• Communication and decision-making processes, even within the same culture, can differ widely between companies due to their unique corporate cultures, leadership styles, and organizational structures.