Koren testified that as soon as these were suppliers, who were all authorized suppliers of NetApp, they (Mappi) decided not to include a quality component in the Mapi tender and to go "for the cheapest price" (p. 557, paras. 22-32); Because after he contacted NetApp and received from it the names of its authorized suppliers, what instructed him in the tender was to get the best price (p. 590, paras. 6-10). Koren testified honestly and openly. His testimony made a credible impression. It is clear that he wished to bring the matter before the court as it was (even if there was some confusion in his testimony on a certain matter, from the outset he did not remember correctly a decade away when M.P. purchased the 'brain' from me, and after all the documents were presented to him, he set the record straight). From Koren's testimony, which is supported by all the evidence, it clearly emerges that in the tender that is the subject of the indictment, Mapi sought to hold a real competition, to receive real offers in order to receive the best price for it. The claims regarding a fictitious tender have no basis (see also Rubinstein's testimony, p. 3746, paras. 9-21, where she explicitly stated that the CPI tender was not a fictitious tender for the receipt of proposals for the minutes only).
- Second, as we have already seen above in the course of the hearing of the twelfth indictment, there is no impediment or difficulty to purchase extensions to NetApp's storage system from another supplier who did not provide the central system.
It is clear that this is technologically possible (Noy, p. 6246, paras. 1-19 and see paragraph 770 above). Rubinstein testified clearly that even though Value supplied the 'brain', "in fact, [Mapi] could have bought the shelves very nicely from me [i.e., A.M.T.] and it was connected to the system" (p. 3673, paras. 3-5; and her testimony, p. 3684, paras. 10-12, according to which even if it was more convenient for the customer to purchase the shelves than the person who sold the system to him, A.E.M.T. could have sold the shelves, this is technically possible, the manufacturer supports it and they will still provide service; See also Zeiger's testimony according to which all of NetApp's suppliers could have submitted the tender from the Land Registry, p. 5982, paras. 10-16; In fact, Oshri also testified that the customer was not obligated to purchase the shelves from the supplier who supplied the 'brain', even though he claimed that "most likely" he would do so, p. 4568, paras. 8-24).