Apple says Jon Prosser ‘has not indicated’ when he may respond to lawsuit

Apple’s PR team has, as one does, issued a terse statement regarding Jon Prosser’s recent assertion of “active communications” with them. The statement concludes that Prosser “has not indicated” when he might respond to the lawsuit filed against him. Let’s be clear: this is less a legal update and more a carefully crafted, exquisitely underwhelming shrug. It’s the digital equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum, then quietly retreating to eat a cookie.

The core argument here, as presented by Apple’s messaging, is that Prosser’s claim of “active communications” is…well, open to interpretation. Let’s unpack this. The article itself states that Prosser *said* he was in active communications. That’s not a legal declaration; it’s a statement. A statement that, frankly, sounds suspiciously like Apple is desperately trying to paint itself as victims here.

The assumption underlying Apple’s statement is that simply *saying* you’re communicating with someone automatically imbues that communication with legal weight. It’s an assumption that would crumble faster than a gingerbread house in a hurricane. It’s an assumption predicated on the idea that Prosser’s words, uttered in a casual interview, possess the same evidentiary value as a sworn affidavit. Seriously, if the mere utterance of “active communications” is enough to trigger a legal response, we need to re-evaluate our entire understanding of legal proceedings. I’m pretty sure my neighbor saying “I’m thinking about borrowing your lawnmower” doesn’t constitute a breach of contract.

The real genius of this response, however, lies in its vagueness. “Has not indicated when he may respond.” Oh, *really*? Let’s be honest, the question isn’t whether Prosser *will* respond; it’s whether he *should*. Apple’s lawyers, bless their hearts, are trying to manage expectations while simultaneously highlighting the absurdity of Prosser’s initial claim. It’s a masterclass in passive-aggressive legal communication. It’s as if they’re saying, “We’re not admitting anything, but we also aren’t offering any clarity.”

Furthermore, let’s address the underlying implication: Apple is operating under the assumption that Prosser’s statements were intentionally misleading. This is a significant legal leap. The fact that Prosser used the phrase “active communications” doesn’t automatically translate to a deliberate attempt to obstruct legal proceedings. It’s possible he genuinely believed he was in contact with Apple. The assumption of malice is a dangerous one, especially in legal contexts. It’s also remarkably convenient for Apple, allowing them to frame the entire situation as a deliberate provocation.

The irony, of course, is palpable. Apple, the company famous for its meticulously crafted narratives and carefully controlled public image, is now embroiled in a PR disaster largely of its own making. They went from a position of relative control to a situation where a single, somewhat ambiguous statement has unleashed a torrent of speculation and criticism. And their response? A beautifully worded, utterly unhelpful shrug.

It’s a reminder that in the digital age, truth is often the first casualty. And sometimes, the most effective legal strategy is simply to avoid engaging. Let the lawyers argue, let the speculation rage, and let Apple quietly continue to sell iPhones. Because, let’s be real, the legal battle is just adding another layer of unnecessary complexity to a product that’s already bafflingly expensive. The important thing is that the rumor mill is still churning, and Jon Prosser is, as always, keeping us all entertained.