Earlier this year, Apple initiated a significant legal action against well-known technology leaker Jon Prosser and his alleged associate, Michael Ramacciotti. In its complaint, the company asserted that the two individuals had engaged in what it described as a calculated and coordinated effort to unlawfully gain access to a confidential Apple development iPhone. According to the lawsuit, this scheme was undertaken with the intent to misappropriate Apple’s trade secrets—highly sensitive proprietary information central to the company’s innovation—and subsequently profit from those disclosures. Apple’s filing characterized the conduct as a deliberate conspiracy designed to compromise its closely guarded intellectual property.
However, in a more recent court submission, Ramacciotti issued a formal and detailed denial of these allegations. He explicitly rejected Apple’s characterization of his involvement as part of any organized conspiracy with Prosser. In his statement, he affirmed that, to the best of his recollection, there had been no prior understanding or agreement between the two regarding payment or compensation related to any activities that occurred. Ramacciotti clarified that any payment made to him by Prosser took place only after the events in question and was not discussed, promised, or negotiated beforehand. His defense thus emphasizes a lack of premeditation or coordination, distancing his actions from the notion of an intentional scheme.
Apple’s original lawsuit went further in detailing its accusations, claiming that Ramacciotti had accessed the development iPhone belonging to former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik. The company alleged that this access had been obtained through tracking Lipnik’s location, allowing Ramacciotti to determine a convenient time—supposedly when Lipnik would be away for an extended period—to gain entry to the device. Apple contended that Ramacciotti then used the phone to conduct a FaceTime call with Prosser, during which he disclosed unreleased features of iOS 26, a forthcoming version of Apple’s operating system that had not yet been made public. Nevertheless, Ramacciotti’s subsequent legal filing offers a more nuanced account. While he conceded that he did indeed access Lipnik’s development iPhone and that a FaceTime session with Prosser took place—during which Prosser requested demonstrations of certain iOS capabilities—he firmly denied the claim that he tracked Lipnik’s movements or engaged in any form of calculated surveillance to obtain access.
According to the details outlined in Ramacciotti’s defense documents, the situation originated several weeks before that FaceTime interaction. During that time, Lipnik himself had reportedly sat down with Ramacciotti and personally navigated through new iOS functionalities on the same development device. Because this earlier encounter appeared to occur with Lipnik’s direct participation and apparent willingness, Ramacciotti claimed that he did not fully grasp the confidential or sensitive nature of the information he was later exposed to. He suggested that Lipnik’s openness in demonstrating the software led him to underestimate the gravity of using or discussing unreleased technologies from Apple’s internal ecosystem.
The filings also describe the financial component at the heart of Apple’s claims. Ramacciotti’s attorneys asserted that Prosser offered him a payment of $650 at some unspecified point after the FaceTime exchange had already taken place. They further argued that this payment had not been the motivating factor behind any earlier communication, since Ramacciotti neither sought compensation nor initiated contact with Prosser expecting to be paid for information. Although Prosser did transfer the $650, Ramacciotti maintained that he had no preconceived expectation of reimbursement or financial reward. Additionally, he stated that he was unaware Prosser had been recording the FaceTime conversation during their demonstration session. In his filing, he unequivocally denied retaining any of Apple’s trade secrets, and he disavowed possession of any other recordings, files, or material that could qualify as confidential corporate data.
When approached for comment following the latest filings, neither Prosser nor Apple provided an immediate public response. Nonetheless, Prosser previously told The Verge that he had been in direct and ongoing communication with representatives from Apple regarding the lawsuit—suggesting at least some level of engagement about its pending resolution. Yet, only days later, Apple contradicted that implication, asserting that Prosser had not made clear when, or even if, he intended to formally respond to the lawsuit. As proceedings continued, court records revealed that a clerk had entered a default against Prosser. In practical terms, this procedural action allows the case to advance further in the absence of an official answer from him. Apple, for its part, has indicated its intention to pursue a default judgment, a decision that could potentially bring the matter to a conclusion even without Prosser’s participation, thereby granting the company a legal victory based solely on the uncontested claims.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/810656/apple-jon-prosser-lawsuit-ios-26-leaker-michael-ramacciotti-paid
