Indeed, from the documents from a real time – and as cited in detail above (see paragraphs 927 (second paragraph), 929 and 934 (Sifa) above) – it emerges that IBM was involved in connection with the storage systems with both Menashe and Shahar. As we saw above, the involvement of a manufacturer – who sells the equipment to suppliers – is not an exception, and it is not invalid (and we saw above that Lavid testified, and that his testimony should be accepted that as an IBM salesperson, which is managed through partners-suppliers, his job is to push the suppliers and expedite them to submit bids so that IBM will sell, p. 6453, paras. 21-26, p. 6454, paras. 1-5, p. 6494, paras. 17-19; Lavid added that if a supplier is not interested in submitting an offer, he does not exert pressure on him, p. 6457, paras. 1-3).
At the same time, it should be noted that there is no basis in the evidence whatsoever for the fact that IBM was the one who "determined" the identity of the winner in the Balam Storage Systems or that the identity of the winner came up at all in the communication between it and the civil appeal (Menashe's testimony in this context, pp. 1496-1497, unknowingly, by way of a general hypothesis, and in an attempt to give an interpretation to the document – N/131 – which he did not know at all, has no real weight and does not matter in this matter; the same is true of his hypothesis at p. 1509. S. 1-8, after clarifying that "I have no idea"). In addition, even if IBM was trying to tune in to the winner's identity, this would not justify coordinating bids.
In addition, and this is the main thing, there is no evidence that anyone at IBM or in a civil appeal was involved in any way in coordinating the proposals between Shachar and Gilad in Balam Storage Systems or that he knew from the coordination (see also Lavid's testimony, in relation to N/97 – p. 6546, paras. 20 – p. 6547, paras. 8; p. 6450, paras. 3-17; the defense also did not claim that Labid knew from the coordination the subject of the NCAA in question or was involved in it; so it also emerges from Shachar's testimony that the coordination with Gilad was not made at the request of anyone from IAI, p. 2920, paras. 4-8). This is even without requiring the fact that the manufacturer's involvement or knowledge cannot justify or legitimize a restrictive arrangement for the coordination of quotations (see paragraph 855 above).