Earlier this week, technology commentator and online personality Jon Prosser—currently facing legal action from Apple over accusations of misappropriating the company’s confidential information—stated in an interview with The Verge that he has maintained what he described as “active communications” with Apple since the earliest phases of the case. Prosser’s remarks suggested that he has been engaging in some form of ongoing dialogue with the corporation throughout the litigation process. However, Apple’s latest legal response, submitted in a new court filing on Thursday and later detailed in coverage by MacRumors, sharply contradicted Prosser’s assertion. In its filing, Apple acknowledged that Prosser had indeed made public reference to the company’s complaint but emphasized that he had failed to clarify whether he intended to formally respond to the lawsuit or, if such a reply were forthcoming, when the court could expect to receive it.
When contacted by The Verge for additional comment following Apple’s submission, Prosser did not immediately provide a response, leaving his current position uncertain. The ongoing legal dispute stems from Apple’s decision, earlier this year, to initiate a lawsuit against Prosser—who had released online videos showcasing purported features of iOS 26 before Apple’s official announcement of the software—and another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti. That suit, filed in July, accuses both individuals of engaging in what the company describes as a deliberate and coordinated effort to gain unauthorized access to an Apple development iPhone, extract confidential trade secrets, and subsequently profit from those disclosures. The allegations depict what Apple portrays as an intentional and collaborative breach of its proprietary security safeguards designed to protect unreleased technologies.
According to court records, a clerk has already entered a default against Prosser as of last week. This procedural step indicates that Prosser has not filed any legal response within the court’s established deadlines, thereby allowing the case to advance toward potential default judgment. In the same Thursday filing, Apple confirmed its plan to pursue such a judgment, which would include both monetary damages and an injunction intended to prohibit Prosser from any further use or dissemination of the company’s protected information. Essentially, this means Apple is asking the court to both penalize Prosser financially and formally restrict his ability to benefit from the alleged misconduct.
The new filing also contained statements attributed to co-defendant Michael Ramacciotti, whose testimony appeared to partly corroborate and partly contest Apple’s narrative. Ramacciotti acknowledged that he had provided information related to iOS 26 to Prosser but sought to make clear that, from his perspective, no underlying “plan, conspiracy, or scheme” had been orchestrated between them. In addition, he asserted that he had not intended to seek financial gain from sharing that information and that no agreement existed at the time promising him any form of compensation, despite a typographical notation of “compensation [sic]” in his written declaration. His comments suggested that his involvement may have been less commercially motivated and more incidental or opportunistic.
Finally, the filing noted that informal settlement discussions have taken place between Apple and Ramacciotti, hinting at the possibility of an alternative resolution outside of prolonged litigation. While the details of these conversations remain confidential, their mention implies that one party might be exploring a negotiated outcome rather than pursuing a drawn-out court battle. Altogether, the sequence of filings and statements illustrates not only the clash between Apple and the individuals accused of leaking its developmental technologies but also the broader tension between corporate secrecy and public curiosity that often accompanies modern technology reporting and leaks.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/news/806664/apple-jon-prosser-not-indicated-respond-lawsuit-trade-secrets-ramacciotti
