Contrary to what was claimed, the update of the contents sent by Winschel some time after the issuance of the license renewal order (P/550, N/60) was not sent only as a companion (see paragraph 888 above). As we have seen, HP's proposal to the Licenses Renewal Division explicitly referred to the contents update (P/85) and in a manner that undermines the defense's arguments (the urgent appeal to Levy's of November 15, 2011 (N/61) to the proposal regarding the purchase of licenses – as opposed to renewal – which revolved around two specific licenses required for a particular project, which Weinschel testified had nothing to do with the Licenses Renewal Order, p. 674, paras. 22-24, p. 675, S. 1-2, p. 676, which was not executed, does not relate to the BLAM and does not matter to our case).
In addition, there are indeed certain differences in the content of the proposals submitted in response to the Licensing Renewal Regulations. Gilad even submitted Harel's proposal on top of the original request from the Communications Division and without updating the contents (P/86, see paragraph 892 above). The defendants sought to build on these differences, as well as from the fact that Weinschel did not examine the proposals that were submitted and did not compare them (p. 671, paras. 13-21). The defendants tried to find support for the claim that the license renewal order was fictitious and that Wie's win was promised in advance. However, these arguments ignore the fact that Weinschel went on maternity leave the day after the bids were submitted, and therefore did not have time to examine the proposals on their merits or to compare them in preparation for the continuation of the procurement process (see, p. 664, paras. 7-17). As mentioned above, some time after Winschel went on maternity leave, Menashe entered the picture. The proposals in the license renewal bill did not mature into a deal (see paragraph 896 above). Instead, the emphasis was shifted to the ELA transaction (in which, as stated above, there is an improper glue). This does not change the clear conclusion that emerges from all the evidence and the conduct in real time, according to which Weinschel acted to receive genuine offers to the Licensing Renewal Police.