With regard to "coordination with IBM as well", Zeiger claimed in his testimony that in the circumstances of supplying equipment purchased from another supplier, IBM's approval is also required (p. 6035, paras. 19-20, p. 5362, paras. 8-10, p. 5344, paras. 20-22; Although it emerged from his testimony that there were cases, even if not common, in which things were done without IBM's knowledge, p. 5661, paras. 10-15 (to leak with hands); See also Hershkovitz, p. 6662, s. 26 - p. 6663, s. 15 (IBM doesn't always know)). There is nothing between the aforementioned series of procurement between suppliers and IBM and the coordination of price quotes that will be submitted to Elta. There is also no basis for IBM knowing about the arrangement that was formulated between Zeiger and Nahum to coordinate the proposals to Elta, or that it had any involvement in it.
We will return to the rest of the correspondence, after Nahum clearly explained the essence of the arrangement and the intention of the parties.
(10) In response to Nahum's announcement, Zeiger asked (09:41):
"Rami, didn't I understand that I was buying half the cost of the project from you?"
(11) To this Nahum (09:45) answered in the affirmative, incorporating a numerical example in order to make the understandings completely clear:
"Yes.
Example:
If the project is $500,000.
You buy half of the contents from me for $250,000 (including Unixes inside).
Adds half of your $250,000 contents.
He sells a project to Elta for $500,000."
(12) Zeiger replied (09:45) to this, agreeing:
"OK"
Shortly afterwards, the two parties, Zeiger and Nahum, returned and confirmed the agreement.
(13) Nahum wrote to Zeiger (09:48):
"Great.
Closed.
also rolls in front of Orshitzer" (underline added).
(14) And Zeiger answered:
"Okay, I'll meet him at noon, too" (underline added).
- A short time later (10:10 a.m.), Nahum sent an internal update on Triple C, where he wrote: "I made a correction with Harel. Agreed with Harel. Half and half. Our half also has Unixes. It was also agreed with Urshitzer. He checks that the process will be legal. will be closed for good by noon" (P/187, P/500, underline added).
- From the correspondence from real time, a clear and unequivocal picture emerges: Zeiger and Nahum agreed to cooperate, "go together", in the MPR project, and reached an understanding and arrangement according to which they would submit two price quotes to Elta, in coordination, so that Triple C's bid would be high and Harel's bid would win, "I give higher bids than yours in coordination" "You win""; Because as part of the arrangement, Harel will purchase half of the purchase content from Triple C in exchange for half of the sale price to Elta, and thus the parties will divide the profits of the sale to Elta, all while concealing the matter of coordinating the offers from Elta.
- Later on, we will discuss in detail all of the defense's arguments. At this stage, we will briefly comment on Zeiger's version at the time of his testimony and the claims of Triple C and Nahum regarding the content of the correspondence.
In summary, Zeiger claimed in his testimony that he did not agree to the alleged arrangement. Zeiger argued that in view of Nahum's position on the division of "half-and-half" and beyond the relative share of the Unix servers in the project, which was one-third, Zeiger believed that Nahum was trying to "work on it", because nothing came out of the matter, and in any case – this is the main argument – that he (Zeiger) did not agree to the alleged arrangement (e.g., p. 5343, paras. 12-20, p. 5351, paras. 15-16; S. 26, p. 5352, S. 2-11). It appears below that this argument should not be accepted. It contradicts real-time documents that show that Zeiger clearly expressed his consent. It was Zeiger who chose the option of "walking together" in response to Nahum's first request. He wrote to Nahum, "We have closed." After the parties had conversations on the phone regarding the division between them, Nahum clarified the details of the arrangement at Zeiger's request – including the submission of coordinated proposals while concealing the matter from Elta – and even presented a numerical example to clarify the matter of the purchase of the contents from Triple C. In a direct response to this, Zeiger wrote back to Nahum "OK", meaning that he accepted the matter and that he agreed. This is also how Nahum understood it in real time when he replied to Zeiger, "Great. Closed," while informing Zeiger that he was beginning to work to promote the matter. To this, Zeiger replied once again, "Okay." Zeiger's testimony while trying to give a different interpretation of what he wrote, in fact emptying them of content, was not reliable. She didn't sit down with the documents in real time. Moreover, Zeiger's version was first raised in his testimony. During his interrogation, he gave evasive answers, while not telling a clear truth about the email correspondence and his conduct with Nahum in connection with the MPR project. This would undermine the credibility of Zeiger's version at the time of his testimony and undermine his claim that he did not agree to the settlement.