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

Apple’s PR department, bless their hearts, has issued a terse statement clarifying that Jon Prosser—the notoriously outspoken tech leaker—has “not indicated” a timeline for responding to the lawsuit filed against him. This, predictably, has become a miniature internet firestorm, fueled by Prosser’s own increasingly erratic behavior and the general delicious chaos surrounding anything related to Apple rumors. Let’s unpack this, shall we?

It’s immediately apparent that Apple’s statement is less a statement of fact and more a strategically crafted shrug. “Not indicated” is PR gold. It’s the verbal equivalent of silently throwing your hands up and saying, “Look, we’re obviously furious, but we’re not going to let you bully us with public outrage.” The fact they bothered to issue a statement at all suggests they’re aware of the narrative Prosser has manufactured, and frankly, they’re probably terrified of the potential damage if he continues to escalate.

The core claim here is, of course, Prosser’s supposed “active communications” with Apple. Let’s be clear: Prosser’s claims of active communication were initially based on a single, somewhat vague tweet. He described engaging in discussions about “potential” leaks, which, let’s be honest, could mean anything from a casual chat about the latest iPhone rumors to a deeply incriminating conversation involving proprietary schematics. The implication is that these conversations are part of Apple’s defense strategy. But that’s a breathtakingly optimistic interpretation, considering Prosser’s track record.

The assumption underpinning this entire situation is that Apple is genuinely concerned about the legal ramifications of Prosser’s actions and that these “communications” somehow demonstrate a vulnerability. This is, I suspect, a significant miscalculation. Apple has a well-documented history of aggressively pursuing legal action against individuals who leak information, even if that information was obtained through less-than-legitimate means. Their past behavior – settling with Ming-Chi Kuo for a hefty sum despite his often-unverified predictions – suggests a willingness to cut a deal rather than a genuine fear of a protracted legal battle.

Furthermore, Apple’s framing of this as a “response” is fascinating. They’re treating Prosser’s existence as a response to their lawsuit. It’s like saying, “Oh no, *he* is reacting to our legal action!” It’s the ultimate deflection. It’s as if they’re suggesting that Prosser’s continued, and frankly, baffling behavior, is somehow a sign of weakness on Apple’s part.

Let’s consider the underlying logic: Apple is suing Prosser for allegedly soliciting confidential information from Apple employees and sharing it with third parties, potentially to facilitate the publication of unreleased product information. This is, in itself, a serious breach of security. However, Apple’s response feels less like a strategic legal maneuver and more like a desperate attempt to control the narrative. They’re treating Prosser’s antics as if he’s a rogue agent actively trying to undermine them, when in reality, he’s simply a guy who seems to enjoy stirring the pot.

The “not indicated” response is a brilliant bit of spin, but it doesn’t change the fact that Prosser’s actions have raised legitimate concerns about data security. It just highlights the lengths to which Apple is willing to go to appear reasonable while simultaneously pursuing a legal action that, at its core, is a response to a very messy and ill-advised situation. It’s a masterclass in damage control, mostly because Prosser is a walking, talking PR disaster. And frankly, we’re all just along for the ride.

SEO Keywords: Jon Prosser, Apple, lawsuit, leaks, rumors, tech, PR, data security, iPhone, Apple lawsuit.