Case | HBS Case Collection | 1999 (Revised from original 1997 version)

Automated Intelligence Corporation

by James K. Sebenius and David T. Kotchen

Abstract

Precision Controls is a Minnesota-based manufacturer of electronic control devices. To enhance its product line, Precision would like to establish an artificial intelligence research group, either through internal development or, preferably, by merging with or acquiring a firm that has strong artificial intelligence capabilities. Automated Intelligence Corp. (AIC), a New York-based research and development firm specializing in artificial intelligence, is an attractive candidate for a merger. For accounting reasons, a merger--if it is to take place--must be accomplished through an exchange of shares. It is up to representatives of both companies to negotiate a mutually agreeable ratio at which all of the shares of AIC can be exchanged for shares of Precision. A rewritten version of an earlier case.

Format: Print

12 pages

Purchase

Citation:

Sebenius, James K., and David T. Kotchen. "Automated Intelligence Corporation." Harvard Business School Case 898-045, May 1999. (Revised from original September 1997 version.)

Sued for patent infringement, chemical manufacturer C.K. Claridge tries to design a settlement strategy taking into account a decision analysis of litigating v. negotiating. The plaintiffs are the patent holder and its sole licensee, who is also a CKC competitor. (This case is a revised, alternative version of “C.K. Coolidge, Inc. (Abridged),” HBS No. 607-006.)

Describes the challenges former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky faced while negotiating a trade agreement with China to improve its domestic intellectual property rights enforcement. After briefly describing Barshefsky's past experience with trade negotiations, this case discusses the history of U.S.-China trade relations and analyzes Ambassador Barshefsky's strategy in coalition-building in the United States and abroad.

Describes the hardball tactics facing Peter Welz, who seeks to negotiate a make-or-break contract with a vastly larger potential client. Welz's counterpart team is led by Preston Spitzer, a notoriously tough player who fully understands his side's massive advantages in the process. With the economic fate of Welz's newly public smaller firm in the balance, Welz and his team must figure out how to handle some very tough tactics by Spitzer and his minions aimed at extracting lopsided contract concessions. These tactics include demeaning remarks, repeated threats to opt for a competitor, misrepresentations, repudiation of previously agreed provisions, last-minute demands, divide-and-conquer moves, and a waiting game that exploits the smaller firm's evidently urgent need for a closure. The (A) case sets up the negotiations and poses an immediate tactical challenge in the context of the overall process. The (B) case describes the strategies, tactics, and results of these negotiations, along with Welz's broader insights into a more productive approach to the common challenge of dealing with very hard bargainers.

General Information

Academic Programs

Alumni

Faculty & Research

Recruit

Resources

Faculty & Research

Automated Intelligence Corporation

Abstract

About the Author

More from the Author

Contact

Related Links

Resources