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

Apple’s statement regarding Jon Prosser’s “active communications” is, frankly, a masterclass in dodging a bullet. Let’s unpack this situation, shall we? Because the core of this whole mess isn’t about whether Prosser will respond to the lawsuit; it’s about Apple’s spectacularly clumsy handling of a man who, let’s be honest, has been broadcasting a steady stream of leaked information for years.

The claim itself – that Apple has “not indicated” when Prosser might respond – is dripping with passive aggression. It’s like saying, “We’re not telling you when we’ll respond because we’re supremely uncomfortable with the fact that you’ve been privy to our future plans.” The phrasing implies a delicate negotiation, a careful dance around a situation that was, to put it mildly, exacerbated by Prosser’s own actions. Let’s be clear: “active communications” doesn’t equate to “considering a carefully worded response.” It suggests a conversation, and conversations often involve a reply.

Apple’s lawyers, in their infinite wisdom, are attempting to portray Prosser as a shadowy figure, a potential threat who *might* engage in a legal battle. It’s a brilliant tactic, designed to instill a sense of dread and uncertainty. But let’s not forget that Prosser’s leaks, while occasionally accurate, have also been accompanied by a generous helping of speculation and, dare I say, outright fabrications. He’s built his entire brand – and, let’s face it, a significant portion of his income – on the promise of insider information. To now claim he’s suddenly retreated into silence, solely because Apple is pursuing legal action, feels… convenient.

The implication that Apple is operating under some kind of immense pressure to engage is also highly suspect. Apple’s legal team is a world-renowned powerhouse. They’ve handled mergers, acquisitions, and intellectual property disputes for decades. The idea that they’re suddenly paralyzed by a single individual’s leaks is almost insulting to their expertise. It’s akin to a seasoned surgeon suddenly fearing a minor cut.

Furthermore, the silence speaks volumes. Apple could have issued a more direct statement, asserting their right to protect confidential information. Instead, they’ve opted for this evasive, drip-fed approach. It’s the digital equivalent of a politician preening for the cameras, attempting to manage a PR disaster with a carefully constructed smokescreen.

The whole situation boils down to this: Apple isn’t worried about Prosser responding. They’re worried about the precedent it would set if someone – anyone – dared to publicly disseminate information they’d deemed proprietary. And let’s be honest, the silence is less about legal strategy and more about an uncomfortable acknowledgment that Prosser, through his own actions, fundamentally disrupted Apple’s control over its narrative. It’s a classic case of “let’s just ignore it and hope it goes away,” which, in the age of social media and instant information, is rarely a successful strategy.

The fact that Apple hasn’t explicitly denied Prosser’s claims – repeatedly stating only that he hasn’t indicated when he may respond – simply amplifies the suspicion that they’re worried about the story continuing to circulate. A straightforward denial would have been far more effective. But no, they’ve chosen the path of passive-aggressive obfuscation. Brilliant.