It was clear from Winschel's testimony that she asked to receive price quotes, real offers, from a number of suppliers for the purpose of renewing the maintenance of the licenses for 2012, to the extent that this would be necessary (see paragraph 887 above; also her conduct in real time, for example in that she tried to negotiate with Gilad for the purpose of an additional discount (P/87); and her testimony that she felt deceived, paragraph 895 above, support this; see also her testimony that in a transaction of this magnitude "there is no way in life" that she would approach only one supplier, p. 708, paras. 13-14). Winschel's testimony was not concealed. As stated above, a distinction must be made between the impropriety that later adhered to the ELA deal that Menashe led, and the license renewal deal in which he was not involved.
Shachar himself testified that Weinschel sought to check the prices for the maintenance of the licenses (p. 3052, para. 27, p. 3053, para. 6, and these statements should be preferred in contrast to the interest he confirmed in his testimony over his attempts to claim that there was no feasibility or importance for the BLAM in order to undermine the effects of the coordination in which he was a party; see paragraph 891 above; and also paragraph 698 of Harel's summaries). Shahar's conduct in real time also indicates that he took the license renewal task force seriously. Thus, for example, Shachar worked to ensure along the way that Way's proposal to renew licenses was in line with what was required (e.g., P/549, P/551). The same is true of the very coordination with Gilad. Shahar himself therefore did not treat the license renewal process as a futile proceeding in which Wee's victory is guaranteed.
Even the indications pointed out by the defendants do not indicate that the license renewal order was fictitious as alleged.
In the framework of the evidence, a proposal of a hook (P/90) was presented that was submitted a few days before the issuance of the CBM (P/84). However, the testimonies showed that a situation in which a supplier who had previously sold licenses for a civil appeal would send an offer to renew licenses towards the end of the year on his own initiative is acceptable and not unusual (Koffler, p. 6621, paras. 6-14); Weinschel even testified that it is possible that she herself or the factories spoke to Shachar by telephone about the need for the proposal even before the publication of the NLM (p. 646, paras. 14-24, p. 648, paras. 2-9). In any case, and as we saw above in the course of the discussion of the previous charges, the submission of a price estimate for a project or a previous price quote to the BLM does not exclude the possibility of going out later on in the BALAM and conducting a pricing, and does not justify or qualify coordination (see and compare: at paragraphs 276-284 above; see and compare also Weinschel's testimony that no involvement of Wei in the concentration of needs, or in responding to the "procurement questionnaire" (ibid., regarding the ELA transaction) is nothing but "presale" efforts. does not constitute an obligation to Wii and does not guarantee a winning, p. 618, s. 17 - p. 619, s. 18).