The foregoing does not exhaust the very many claims of the parties but serves only to provide general background.
Order of Discussion
9. Subject to preliminary questions of limitation and laches (see below), the initial dispute requiring decision in this file is the question of ownership of the Software: Is it vested in the Plaintiff or Shva? If ownership of the Software belongs to Shva, then effectively most of the Plaintiff's claims in the proceeding fall away. To the extent ownership of the Software is vested in the Plaintiff, it must be examined whether Shva was entitled to execute a transfer to Keren HaTamar in the manner in which it was done.
10. First, and as background for the discussion, several procedural notes regarding the proceeding will be presented, milestones in the chronological sequence of events will be noted, and the relevant normative framework will be mentioned.
Procedural Notes
11. The parties turned to a mediation proceeding, but it did not succeed, and the parties brought their evidence.
On behalf of the Plaintiff, Shitrit himself testified.
On behalf of Shva, Mr. Tamir Refaeli ("Refaeli"), Manager of Partner and Government Relations, testified. Shva sought to summon for testimony Mr. Gideon Milvitzky ("Milvitzky"), who served as CEO of Shva at the relevant times. Given the witness's age and health condition, a date was set for taking early testimony. However, this testimony was ultimately not heard for reasons related to the witness's health, which will not be detailed for reasons of privacy. for the sake of good order, it is noted that an application was filed on behalf of the witness, medical documents were submitted, and a hearing was held regarding the application.
On behalf of Keren HaTamar, Mr. Yigal Malka ("Malka"), the CEO, testified. Initially, Keren HaTamar intended to also have Mr. Shlomo Avidan, the Deputy CEO, testify, but as he finished his work there, his affidavit was replaced by a supplementary affidavit from Malka.
12. After the hearing of evidence was completed, further attempts were made to assist the parties in bringing the proceeding to a conclusion through understanding or a shortened path. The attempts were unsuccessful, even after an additional hearing, seemingly in large part due to a significant perceptual gap between the parties. The parties submitted written summaries of arguments.
13. References to pages and lines are references to the protocols of the hearings as they appear in the computerized file, unless stated or implied otherwise.