The defense referred to N/131. This is an approval by IBM from the beginning of 2009, according to which, as of the date of approval, Wii serves as the Industry Solution Integrator for N-Series storage products for ELTA's MPR project . The document does not refer to Wii's exclusivity. This does not exclude the possibility of supply by another supplier (see N/130, where Lavid himself suggested Harel as someone who could provide a solution to the NDP; see also Gilad's appeal to Menashe, P/175, which clearly shows that Harel saw herself, at least presented herself, as capable of supplying the systems in question). Document N/131 was made almost three years before the Storage Systems Division. It was not clarified whether he had any repercussions in 2012. Menashe – he was the one who issued Balam Storage Systems on behalf of Maman – replied in his testimony that this was the first time he had seen the document and that he was not familiar with it (p. 1495, paras. 18-21, p. 1496, paras. 16-22). IBM also testified that he was not familiar with the document (p. 6452, paras. 27-28). In any event, there is no evidence that anyone in the funder or in the civil appeal believed that the document was relevant or binding with respect to the Storage Systems Administration. Moreover, even if it was argued that the document reflects a contractual obligation to Wei and that this applies to the BDC in question – and it appears that there is no such substantive claim in the defence summaries – this would not permit an arrangement to coordinate price quotes (see the discussion at paragraph 180 above).
The claim that this is an extension of an existing Wii project was also unsubstantiated by the evidence. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the WI is an extension of an existing system provided by Wii that has Wii's responsibility. In the summaries, the defense referred to what Menashe and Lvid had said in this context in their testimonies. However, an examination of these statements reveals that these are general statements, some of which did not relate at all to the charge in question, and which were made only by way of hypothesis. They do not provide an evidentiary basis for the claim (Lavid, p. 6458, paras. 28 - p. 6459, paras. 1-5, where he replied that he had no idea why he sent a certain e-mail and raised it only as a hypothesis that it might be an extension; pp. 6465-6463, where he referred to extensions in general without any real reference to the NBA in question; Menashe, p. 1456, paras. 1-3, 10-19, where he was asked and answered about extensions to an existing project and the issue of liability without referring to the LAM here, and while noting that it is not necessarily Wei who will win, s. 13 ibid.). Since no basis was laid for the claim that this was an extension of Wee's project, the basis for the argument based on this, as if it were clear that Value would win the WM. In any event, even if it were an extension to a previous storage system, there is no impediment to purchasing it from another supplier, and in any case there is no justification for coordination even if there is an advantage in purchasing from the original supplier (see and compare the discussion at paragraphs 770-771, 773, 831 and 834 above).