This case focuses on the 2001 negotiation between Mytex Pharmaceuticals and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The outcome of the negotiation would determine the new label for Mytex's blockbuster drug for arthritis, Flaxil. The negotiation is quite qualitative and differs from the typical price negotiation with which students are familiar. However, at stake was $500 million in Flaxil sales and the safety of millions of patients. The (A) case presents the perspective of Mytex and the FDA on new data suggesting the Flaxil may have a side effect.

This case focuses on the 2001 negotiation between Mytex Pharmaceuticals and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The outcome of the negotiation would determine the new label for Mytex's blockbuster drug for arthritis, Flaxil. The negotiation is quite qualitative and differs from the typical price negotiation with which students are familiar. However, at stake was $500 million in Flaxil sales and the safety of millions of patients. The (B) case presents the perspectives of a patient and her doctor as they consider the new information about Flaxil's risk profile.

This case focuses on the 2001 negotiation between Mytex Pharmaceuticals and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The outcome of the negotiation would determine the new label for Mytex's blockbuster drug for arthritis, Flaxil. The negotiation is quite qualitative and differs from the typical price negotiation with which students are familiar. However, at stake was $500 million in Flaxil sales and the safety of millions of patients. The supplement contains an epilogue to the A case.

In negotiation, correctly identifying your counterpart's strategy is vital. Only then can you constructively influence their behavior--or adapt appropriately to what they are doing. This case--and its related computer-based exercise (Negotiation Strategy Simulation)--illuminate how through a thoughtful process of probing and testing, a negotiator may determine whether the other party tends to be cooperative or competitive. The material also demonstrates how the benefit of such learning must be weighed against the possible costs of being provocative.