Moreover, Oshri himself testified that in general, until a final order is received, he is always afraid, including that a competitor will come up with a cheaper offer (see paragraph 282 above). As also evidenced by a place where Wii's involvement and added value are high: "I'm always scared. I am personally always afraid" (p. 4838, s. 12). Under these circumstances, the claim that he did not attribute importance to an email sent to him by Schiffer – regarding a project in which he was personally involved and which he said was important to him – is unacceptable and is nothing more than an attempt to distance himself from an incriminating email (which is joined by Oshri himself, which raises the concern that other suppliers will submit suicide costs and endanger Wee's winnings). P/215, paras. 190-192, or they will dump, in a way that will harm the profitability of Wii, p. 5050, paras. 2-6; Even the scenario presented by Oshri as if at most Harel would win, and it was still Wei who would supply it with the equipment, p. 4558, paras. 18-21, p. 4559, paras. 8-14, testifies that contrary to Oshri's version, there was a possibility that another supplier would win, in a way that might have harmed Wee, which from a business perspective preferred to sell directly to the customer, p. 4560, paras. 4, in addition to the fact that it was not proven that in the circumstances of the case it was necessary for Harel to purchase from Wei in such a situation; Even what was stated in B/267 with respect to the update of the number numbers "after we win" does not change it, and Oshri's answer in this regard showed that even according to his position there was no certainty regarding the winning, p. 4548, paras. 8-11).
Oshri also claimed that he understood Schiffer's remarks that he had "closed the corner of the competition" and that "there will be no problem" regarding mutual procurement between suppliers. That is, because he understood that other suppliers had approached Lewis with a request to purchase the equipment for the project from her, and that Shahar or Schiffer had given them a procurement offer on the basis of which the other suppliers would submit their bids for the project. This argument should also not be accepted. It is illogical in the circumstances of the case. Oshri himself noted that even if a levy had been a priority from IBM for the Oranim project, a competing supplier could have approached IBM and received a price quote from it, even if it would be higher than the offer given to levy (P/215, paras. 400-401). In the circumstances of the case here, it was not clarified why competing suppliers would turn specifically to the purchase of the equipment from Wii and not to IBM (and especially when it is not a matter of characterization or unique development, P/215, paras. 228-229). Even the clear language used by Schiffer – according to which he and Shahar made sure to close the corner of the competition and that there would be no problem – clearly attests to an understanding and an arrangement that will prevent the offering of cheaper prices than those of Wii (as will indeed be done later). It is inconsistent with the request of suppliers but with the purchase of equipment from Wee, a procurement that does not exclude the possibility that other suppliers will submit an offer cheaper than Wie's (even at a loss) and does not "close the corner of competition" (see, for example, Oshri himself's statement that even a supplier who receives an offer to purchase from another supplier can try to "commit suicide over it", P/215, paras. 160-162).