Rubinstein testified that there were such cases in the past in which even though A.E.M.T. supplied the system to the customer, shelves were later purchased from other suppliers (p. 3675, paras. 3-20). In other words, it is possible and has also happened in practice.
Moreover, Rubinstein testified that in a case where one supplier supplied the 'brain' and another supplier supplied the shelves, there is no real difficulty in the issue of warranty or service, since according to the manufacturer's policy (NetApp) in such a case the warranty for the shelves is derived from the warranty for the machine itself and the service to the customer will be provided by the supplier who supplied the brain or directly from the manufacturer (p. 3673, paras. 3-24, p. 3674, Sat. 17-20; The EMET's proposal included a note on this matter, P/78, p. 23, p. 30; P/292). Noy (Netapp) confirmed this in his testimony and noted that from a practical point of view, NetApp took responsibility and provided the service and spare parts regardless of the question of who installed the brain and who installed the shelves, and that he did not recall that problems arose in this regard (p. 6246, s. 24 - p. 6248, s. 16). Rubinstein also testified that in practice, EMET continued to provide service where it supplied the system and another supplier provided shelves (p. 3675, paras. 3-20). All of these are sufficient to reflect on the defense's arguments regarding the weight of the issue of liability.
The bottom line: from a practical and technological point of view, it is clear that there was a feasibility of competition. In any event, and detached from the aforesaid, it is clear that even if it is assumed that there was a substantive basis for preferring Wei – as the person who supplied the 'brain' following the 2010 tender – there is still no justification for coordinating price quotes behind the backs of the Planning Authority, and the defense's arguments do not legitimize such coordination.
- Third, the defense's arguments should not be accepted on the basis of the 2012 exemption. Wei and Oshri find in Koren's testimony on this matter much more than what it contains.
Indeed, as already noted above, at a certain point in his testimony Koren found himself in a certain confusion with regard to the date on which Mapi purchased the "brain" of the storage system from Wei in a manner that had implications for the answers he gave later in his testimony regarding the subsequent shelves procurement procedures. Koren's testimony was given about a decade after the events that are the subject of the testimony. As stated above, the aforesaid mistake in Koren's testimony, which was corrected after he was presented with the full copy of the documents, does not detract from the reliable impression that his testimony as a whole aroused.