What do you guys think?
Christina Peterson, hector Gonzolas, and John Ping are involved in the development and licensing of genetically engineered agricultural products. Unfortunately, it appears as though a competitor has copied some of their work. The competitor alleges that e genetically engineered plans were developed by independent research and not by using any of their work. They decide that it is necessary to protect their rights against the competitor and are considering filing a lawsuit. However, one of the drawbacks of the lawsuit is that the case is extremely complicated and there is a fear that a judge and/or jury will not be familiar enough with the complex issues, nor be able to educate themselves at the trial, in order to arrive at the proper result. Please define three (3) alternative resolution models. Which of these may be the better choice for the plaintiffs and why?

1. Mediation: this is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR, it involves an arrangement, where by the third party, often a professional attorney, tried to settle issue ls between the two aggrieved parties. The third party is referred to as mediator, and his job is to carve out a settlement between the parties involved, such that they reach a settlement. However, the outcomes are not binding on the parties, and the parties may not even agree on the settlement that is being offered by the mediator.

2. Collaboration: this is also a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, whereby, the parties involved will hire attorney each to represent them, these attorneys will be the ones to negotiate on behalf of the aggrieved parties, then find a reasonable settlement. However, just like mediation, the outcome is not biding, and they may not even reach an agreement or settlement.

3. Arbitration: this is also a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution, whereby, the two parties involved in the dispute, will make use of arbitrator, a neutral third party that will preside over the issue. Often times, the arbitrator assigned is someone who has the required experience or expertise in the subject matter of dispute, hence, he understands the intricacies and complexity of the issue. Whether the outcome can be binding or not depends on the parties involved, as they have power before hand to agree on the nature of the arbitration before it starts. Also, outcome can sometimes be appealed if it does not favour any of the parties.

It is more closer to actual litigation, and mostly used to resolve dispute of special subject matter.

Hene, from the explanations above, the best choice for the plaintiff is ARBITRATION, because

1. The Arbitrator will understand the context of disputes due to his experience and expertise on the subject of dispute.

2. The outcome can also be binding, hence, plaintiff will achieve the same outcome as in the litigation.