Beyond that, we will add that an examination of the testimonies and evidence shows that it is not clear to what extent the civil appeal personnel knew about IBM's pricing method vis-à-vis its suppliers – including the mechanism of the special in hand and prioritization – and to what extent they knew these in detail. Orshitzer and Liv of IBM testified that they did not share the prioritization and special mechanism with the civil appeal and explained that the relationship between IBM and its suppliers-partners is not the subject of a civil appeal (Orshitzer, p. 2454, paras. 1-27, so he clarified to Peretz, p. 2455, paras. 15-17; Labid, p. 6503, paras. 10-13; this is consistent with Peretz's testimony according to which Orshitzer did not respond to him in a substantive manner when he asked him whether IBM gives different hands to different suppliers. P. 1796, paras. 18-24, see also p. 1771, paras. 12-18, where he testified that he was answered that there was no priority).
Against this background, it is possible to understand the various answers given by the Civil Appeals Counsel when asked if they knew about the special mechanism by hand (e.g., Zaguri, who testified that he did not know, p. 2209, paras. 24-30; in contrast to Peretz, whose testimony mentioned above, it emerged that he assessed that there was a priority, see also p. 1733, para. 21; Shkedi, who assumed that IBM gives priority to a different supplier each time out of its own considerations, in a way that affects his chances, While emphasizing that he did not know and that it was a matter of reasoning, p. 1910, s. 21-p. 1911, s. 2, p. 1840, s. 5-10, where he stated that he did not know but that it bothered him with IBM; Leshem, who testified that he did not know, p. 2133, paras. 5-6, p. 2191, paras. 10-15 (but see N/82); Shkanevsky, para. 4 to T/114).
We have seen above that even ignoring the fact that the special mechanism in the hand is not relevant to a significant part of the charges, the substance of the matter did not negate the feasibility of competition. In any event, it emerged from the testimonies of the civil appellants that even if one of them believed that prioritizing one of the suppliers in a particular case could affect the intensity of the competition or its chances, it was also understood that prioritization does not guarantee a win and does not negate the existence of competition (Shkedi testified that IBM cannot determine who will win, even if by prioritizing it can increase the chances of winning). P. 1960, paras. 1-14, Prioritization that can be provided does not mean that he will win, there are other areas of maneuver, tension of profits and other considerations, p. 1843, paras. 15-21; This is even if he testified elsewhere that he felt that because of IBM he could not maximize competition or that IBM was dividing the market and the game was addicted, p. 1844, s. 13-15, p. 1843, s. 9, p. 1840, s. 5-23; Peretz testified that there can always be "surprises", another supplier can give a higher discount in order to win, suppliers can turn to IBM and make an "intifada", etc. (see paragraph 598 above); See also the testimony of Shaknevsky, p. 1025, paras. 3-7, according to which prioritization affects the ability to compete, does not negate it; Mordechai, p. 1159, paras. 10-12, even in the case of IBM, it is possible to approach a number of suppliers; p. 1232, s. 17 - p. 1233, s. 2, it is the procurement of a civil appeal that decides who the winning supplier is; and even in the case of prioritization, competition can be created in order to obtain a better price (despite his earlier statements, p. 1232, paras. 1-4); see also the testimony of Orshitzer, prioritization increases the supplier's chances of receiving the transaction, p. 2567, paras. 1-3, Orshitzer did not check that this was a discount that would guarantee the winning, p. 2590, s. 12 - p. 2592, s. 4; and also the testimony of the individual, a priority that can be given to the supplier did not guarantee him a win, p. 6568, paras. 2-4, paras. 10-18, p. 6441, s. 26 - p. 6442, s. 3, a non-prioritized supplier can compensate for this for business considerations).