Nahum and Triple C claimed, inter alia, that the combined MPR was not published at all and that the contents of the procurement were not known; that the correspondence between Zeiger and Nahum was nothing more than an exploration to examine the possibility of cooperation insofar as a problematic MPR came out that combined the two types of servers in one demand; that cooperation between Harel and Triple C was in the circumstances of the best interest for IAI; that the correspondence reflected no more than an attempt by Nahum to force Zeiger to divide the deal that was different from the relative share of each of the parties therein and does not amount to an "arrangement"; that the content of the correspondence is not as claimed, since Nahum did not offer Zeiger to coordinate proposals, and in any case, Nahum's statement that "they must not know" does not relate to the intention to conceal coordination, etc.
- We will now deal with all of the defense's arguments.
Zeiger agreed to the arrangement and an arrangement was made between the parties
- The main argument raised by Zeiger and Harel is that Zeiger did not intend to make a deal with Nahum, because he did not agree to the deal and that he did not agree to an arrangement to coordinate bids as alleged.
In this context, it was argued, inter alia, that the correspondence between Zeiger and Nahum was a "game of honor" between those who did not trust each other (referring to what Nahum said in his interrogation, P/237, paras. 601-606); Because as soon as Zeiger demanded from Nahum that in the joint deal, Harel would be "on the front" with Elta and that it would purchase the Unix servers from Triple C, Nahum demanded that the distribution be half-and-half, even though he knew that "it is problematic to carry it out" (ibid.); Because Zeiger testified that in light of Nahum's position on a "half-and-half" division, Zeiger began to "doubt the viability of this whole deal," because he understood that Nahum was trying to "work on him" and "trick him" and "that it wasn't going to work" (e.g., p. 5343, paras. 12-20, p. 5351, paras. 15-16; S. 26, p. 5352, S. 2-11; Zeiger and Harel also referred to the words of Nahum, P/237, para. 614: "Just regretting it, you want to be at the front, pay me"); Because in view of the disparity between the profits of each of the parties according to their share of the servers, and what Nahum demanded, it is clear that Zeiger would not have agreed, and that Nahum himself had said that "it is all idle talk" (P/237, paras. 610-612); that Zeiger did not agree to the deal and that when he wrote to Nahum "we have closed" he did not intend to close a deal with him, but rather he meant that they had closed the dialogue between them (p. 5344, paras. 15-17), and indeed the continuation of the correspondence testifies that Nahum did not see this as the end of the verse either; that Zeiger did not agree to coordinate offers and hide them from ALTA; Because when he replied to Nahum "OK" it was not an expression of agreement and in fact he said to Nahum "Ok, I understand you... We have closed the dialogue between us" (p. 5357, paras. 13-21). Harel and Zeiger reiterated these arguments in the oral summaries as well (p. 7009, paras. 21 ff.).
- These claims must be rejected. Zeiger's version, which was first raised in testimony, should be rejected. The evidence from real time clearly shows that Zeiger agreed to an arrangement with Nahum that included coordinating price quotes to ELTA.
- We saw that Nahum wrote to Zeiger: "I give higher offers than you do in coordination," "You win," and that they must not know." The matter is clear, explicit and unequivocal. Moreover, Zeiger did not dispute in his testimony that Nahum's intention was that the parties would coordinate the prices of the bids so that Triple C would submit a high bid that would lead to Harel's win, and that this should have been concealed from Elta (p. 5355, s. 1 - p. 5356, s. 10, and see the answers there to the court's questions, see also: p. 6054, s. 30 - p. 6055, 32). Zeiger also did not dispute that this is how he understood the matter (ibid.; below, it appears that the arguments raised by Triple C, C.C., and Nahum regarding the content of the correspondence should be rejected; arguments raised by Zeiger and Harel in this matter, while referring to Nahum's words in his interrogation, P/237, paras. 738-740, are inconsistent with the claims of Triple C and Nahum themselves, they do not make sense and have no anchor in Zeiger's testimony).
Zeiger's claims that he did not agree to the said arrangement should be rejected.