Apple’s Lawsuit Advances as Jon Prosser Misses Deadline
▼ Summary
– The US District Court has granted Apple’s request to enter default against Jon Prosser in a lawsuit over leaked trade secrets related to iOS 26 and iOS 19.
– Apple alleges that Michael Ramacciotti broke into an ex-employee’s Development iPhone and shared unreleased iOS details with Prosser via a video call.
– Prosser is accused of recording the call, disseminating the trade secrets, and profiting by sharing them on his YouTube channel for ad revenue.
– Prosser failed to respond to the lawsuit by the deadline, allowing the case to proceed without his defense, though he can still request to set aside the default.
– Prosser claims he has been in active communication with Apple since the case began, contradicting reports that he ignored the lawsuit.
A federal court in California has granted Apple’s motion to enter a default against tech commentator Jon Prosser, marking a significant development in the high-profile lawsuit over alleged trade secret theft. This legal action stems from claims that Prosser obtained and publicly shared confidential details about an unreleased iOS version, leveraging the information for commercial gain through his online platforms.
To understand the current situation, it helps to review the background. Earlier this year, Prosser released videos that featured extensive details of what was later identified as the Liquid Design overhaul planned for iOS 26. In July, Apple initiated legal proceedings against both Prosser and a second individual, Michael Ramacciotti. The complaint alleges they conspired to misappropriate trade secrets and violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in connection with the leak.
Apple’s legal filing outlines a detailed sequence of events. It states that Ramacciotti gained entry to a Development iPhone belonging to a former Apple employee, Ethan Lipnik. According to the account, Ramacciotti tracked Lipnik’s movements to determine when he would be away, obtained his device passcode, and accessed the improperly secured iPhone. During a video call with Prosser, Ramacciotti reportedly displayed the unreleased iOS 19 operating system, demonstrating various features and applications.
The lawsuit further contends that Prosser conceived the plan and assured Ramacciotti he would arrange compensation in exchange for access to the confidential material. Prosser allegedly recorded the video call using screen capture software, retained the footage on his personal devices, and distributed it to others. At least one recipient recognized Lipnik’s apartment in the recording and informed him. Apple asserts that Prosser profited from these trade secrets by featuring them in multiple YouTube videos that generate advertising revenue.
Apple is seeking a jury trial and has requested injunctive relief, monetary damages, and punitive measures. The company also aims to secure a court order permanently prohibiting Prosser from disclosing any of its confidential information in the future. Prosser quickly refuted Apple’s version of events, initially stating he anticipated discussing the matter directly with the company.
Recent developments show that while Ramacciotti requested and received an extension to respond, moving his deadline to October 17, Prosser did not submit any formal reply to the complaint. On October 10, Apple petitioned the court to enter a default against Prosser, a request the judge approved last Friday. This step allows the case to move forward without Prosser’s active participation in the proceedings.
The reasons behind Prosser’s failure to respond remain unclear. Legally, he retains the option to petition the court to set aside the default, but he would need to demonstrate that his lack of response resulted from excusable neglect or another valid justification. Should he not take this action, the court will likely issue a default judgment favoring Apple. However, because Ramacciotti remains a co-defendant, a final resolution may be postponed until his portion of the litigation concludes.
In a recent statement provided to The Verge, Prosser offered a different perspective. He clarified, “All I can tell you is that regardless of what is being reported, and regardless of what the court documents say , I have, in fact, been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of this case. The notion that I’m ignoring the case is incorrect. That’s all I am able to say.”
(Source: 9to5 Mac)
