The allegations are inconsistent with the picture that emerged from the evidence. As detailed above, from the testimonies of Shahar and Naveh, two of the participants in the meeting, it emerged that at the meeting the parties reached an agreement whereby the parties would not interfere with each other, so that where one of the companies began working with a certain project, the other companies would allow it to win the project, including by way of coordinating the submission of high bids in a way that would lead to the winner of the win. The agreement or understandings were mutual: Wii and Triple C would not interfere with Harel where she worked, and in return Harel would not interfere with them where they worked, while balancing and assigning projects to the various companies. In the meeting, the participants referred to certain projects and each participant indicated where they worked. After the meeting, Shachar sent the e-mail message and the table (P/1) in which he referred to the "summary", "division of labor according to an agreement" and the "balance" of the scope of the activity (for the arguments in relation to the table, we will address it separately below). This is a clear summary of the division, including a reference to the manner in which the proposals will be coordinated in the future. For the reasons explained above, the attempt to build on statements made by Naveh and Shachar that were made in the trend or also Zeiger's announcement should not be accepted. 5385, paras. 22-23 also applies to future projects, such as the Colibri project in the projects of the defendants' channel. Sat. 8-16E. when it was presented to minimize the acts and present them in a legitimate and unreliable light. The same is true with respect to Zeiger's testimony in the matter, as detailed above.
Zeiger and Harel also referred to what Nahum of Triple C said in his interrogation with the Competition Authority that it is okay to say who is leading in which project (P/239, paras. 342-345). However, the weight of the matter is limited since Nahum did not participate in the meeting at all (and did not testify at the trial). This is also in disregard of the fact that shortly afterwards Nahum replied that this was a matter of "division" (P/239, paras. 350-353, where he tried to qualify that this was unacceptable to him; The same applies to the attempt to build on Nahum's words in his interrogation that IBM itself managed a "list of opportunities" P/239, paras. 350-351 (and see also N/179), which has nothing to do with the meeting and the summary before us).