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

Apple’s statement regarding Jon Prosser’s alleged “active communications” has landed with the subtlety of a dropped iPhone 6. Let’s be clear: saying someone “has not indicated” when they might respond to a lawsuit is the linguistic equivalent of a shrug combined with a carefully constructed wall of legal jargon. It’s a brilliant tactic, of course, but also incredibly transparent.

The core argument here, as presented by Apple’s PR team, is that Prosser’s casual claim of “active communications” somehow demands a detailed, time-stamped accounting of every text message, email, and whispered conversation about… well, whatever it is he was allegedly communicating about. This is, frankly, ludicrous. The implication is that someone engaging in “active communications” with a company facing a lawsuit is obligated to provide a spreadsheet outlining the scope and frequency of those discussions.

It’s an assumption built on the entirely reasonable premise that if someone says they’re “in communication,” they’re simply *in communication*. It’s like saying a dog is “actively sniffing” – it doesn’t require a detailed report on the chemical composition of every scent detected. The fact that Apple is treating this assertion with the gravitas of a criminal investigation suggests they’re not interested in understanding Prosser’s actions, but rather in controlling the narrative.

The lawsuit itself, alleging Prosser knowingly misrepresented Apple’s plans for unannounced products, is serious. However, framing the response to his claim of communication as a demand for a forensic audit of his personal dialogue is a masterclass in deflection. It avoids the core issue – the potential for misrepresentation and premature leaks – by focusing solely on the *manner* in which he apparently communicated.

Let’s be honest, the legal system thrives on ambiguity. It’s built on assumptions, interpretations, and the careful crafting of wording. Apple isn’t trying to win a factual battle here; they’re attempting to establish the appearance of a diligent defense, even if that defense involves employing the most remarkably vague and self-serving statement possible.

And let’s not forget the crucial detail: Prosser’s initial claim was delivered via Twitter. A platform notoriously prone to hyperbole, misinterpretations, and the unedited ramblings of people who haven’t had their thoughts carefully curated by a legal team. To demand absolute clarity from a source originating in that environment is akin to asking a squirrel to write a detailed business plan.

The statement isn’t about justice; it’s about control. Apple wants to demonstrate that they’re not backing down, that they’re taking the allegations seriously, and, crucially, that they have the legal firepower to respond with the kind of impenetrable language that makes even seasoned lawyers scratch their heads. It’s a PR victory, expertly executed, and completely devoid of any genuine engagement with the situation.

Ultimately, Apple’s response isn’t a legal strategy; it’s a performance. And frankly, it’s a pretty entertaining one.