What is the definition of "win-win" that you are against?

I'm not familiar with Jim Camp, but the term is vague. The linked article to me mainly seems to argue that:

- the side with a better BATNA has more negotiating power (yes, of course) and

- a negotiator should avoid agreeing to a bad deal out of desperation (yes, of course - but not always easy to do)

I'm not sure how the concept of "win-win" specifically plays into it, so I think this is where definitions are useful.

To me, win-win doesn't make sense for transactional negotiations where there is only one dimension (usually price), but CAN happen for more complex negotiations with multiple dimensions where each dimension has different value to each party (price, time, volume commitments, etc...)