Zeiger and Harel tried to construct various statements made by Nahum in his interrogation with the Authority, including his statements regarding the correspondence with Zeiger that "this is all idle talk" (P/237, paras. 610-612) and similar statements. The attempt to build on a selective choice of statements made by Nahum with the clear aim of extricating himself from incriminating correspondence and presenting it as unserious should not be accepted, and this does not change the clear conclusion regarding the coordination arrangement and the fact that Zeiger agreed to it. All after discussions and after two senior managers – Zeiger and Nahum – devoted their time to correspondence and phone calls, in order to reach understandings. In fact, Nahum himself understood in real time that Zeiger agreed. As we saw above, Nahum wrote to Zeiger, "Great. closed" while noting that he was beginning to "roll" the matter to which Zeiger also responded, once again, with consent (see also P/187, P/500 where Nahum informed his people at Triple C shortly after the end of the correspondence with Zeiger (P/123) that the matter had been "agreed with Harel"). All this, even without resorting to repeated statements by Nahum in his interrogation that Zeiger agreed (P/237, s. 619, "he agreed," s. 669-670, "he is ready," pp. 749-751; S. 754: "He wrote to me, I understood, I receive"; S. 798-799, "This is what I agreed with Zeiger and Zeiger agreed," S. 803).
Zeiger and Harel argued that the gap between Harel's profits in the "half-and-half" alternative and its profits in the "half-and-half" alternative, in which each side enjoys the profits from the equipment it sells, with X servers accounting for two-thirds of the content, is significant. Therefore, it was argued that it is clear that Zeiger would not have agreed to the transaction as proposed by Nahum, who was "gridy" (p. 5361, para. 17). However, this argument contradicts the clear evidence from real time regarding Zeiger's consent, as Nahum also understood. Moreover, the logic underlying the claim ignores the fact that according to Harel's own approach, it had no choice but to cooperate with a supplier authorized to Unix servers (in our case, Triple C), without which it would not have been able to provide a response to the combined procurement demand. This dependence that was created – according to Harel – can explain the logic of an agreement on a profit distribution that goes towards Triple C (and see in this context also paragraph 143 of Triple C summaries).