Hence, the claims that Wii took preliminary actions against the civil appeal and against IBM should be rejected in a manner that ensured its victory. Beyond the fact that no real evidentiary basis was laid for such actions, we have seen above that such activity does not promise to provide anything (see the discussion at paragraphs 276-284 above) and in any case they do not justify coordination or legitimize it.
Moreover. The claims of preference or advantage accompanying the mines are even more acute in the circumstances of the indictment in question.
Here, it was actually Harel who had an initial foothold in the project, involved in formulating the solution, providing equipment for testing, and submitting an initial proposal to the project's personnel. However, Harel, who could clearly compete for the project and who certainly had a chance of winning it, agreed to give up Levi on the project in light of Shahar's request to her. We saw above that about a month before the publication of the Oranim Police Department, Shachar contacted Zeiger and Gilad from Harel and complained that it was unfair that they were not letting Shahar win anything. Shahar wrote to Zeiger and Gilad: "...I spoke to Gilad today and complained to him that it's not fair that you don't let me win anything. It's a bit of a pig, don't you think? You have won the last three projects and I congratulate you with all my heart... In my opinion, it doesn't look good in a civil appeal that you win everything..." (P/388, and see paragraph 635 above; Shahar later wrote that in light of the above, there is concern that a civil appeal will bring Triple C back to the arena of competition). Shahar testified that subsequently Harel agreed to give up the Oranim project (Shahar, p. 2866, paras. 16-32, where he confirmed his statement from the investigation that at that time Harel had won all the projects at IAI, that because of this Shahar asked Harel to give him up the Oranim project even though it was Harel who had previously worked on it with IAI, and that Harel had agreed (P/557(6), s. 262-269); These clear statements, contrary to the interest, should be preferred to his retraction of them in the cross-examination, p. 3439, paras. 12-16, where he overwhelmingly approved what was offered to him and contrary to the picture of Harel's early involvement that emerged from the documents; See also Oshri testimony, p. 4558, paras. 18-21, which also clearly shows that Harel could have competed; and this even without addressing the words of Shachar in P/557(5) S. 1085-1090).