Okay, here’s a blog post addressing the claims in that brief summary, aiming for wit, criticism, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

—

## Apple’s Cryptic Response: More Smoke Than Signal (and Probably More Lawyers)

Let’s be clear: Jon Prosser is a fascinating figure. A former *AppleInsider* editor, he’s built a career on insider leaks and bold predictions – some of which have spectacularly come true. But let’s not mistake a cryptic “not indicated” for a genuine willingness to engage with a lawsuit. Apple’s response to Prosser’s claim of “active communications” is about as transparent as a brick wall painted with a vague rainbow.

**The Claim:** Apple stating that Prosser “has not indicated” when he may respond to the lawsuit.

**The Problem:** This isn’t a denial; it’s a strategic obfuscation. Let’s unpack why this feels less like a legal strategy and more like a desperate attempt to control the narrative. Apple is essentially saying, “We’re not ruling anything out, but we’re also not giving him any rope to hang himself with.” It’s the digital equivalent of a politician dodging a question with a shrug and a mumbled “complicated.”

**Assumption #1: Prosser *was* actually in ‘active communications.’** This is the bedrock of Apple’s argument, and frankly, it’s a massive gamble. Apple is essentially saying, “We believe he was talking to us, and therefore, he’s potentially liable.” But what constitutes “active communications?” A casual text? A slightly pointed tweet? A philosophical discussion about the merits of the M2 chip? Apple hasn’t defined the boundaries of this alleged engagement, leaving the door open for a mountain of legal interpretation. It’s a wonderfully vague assertion, designed to frustrate the opposition.

**Assumption #2: The Lawsuit is Serious.** Apple’s response implies they are taking the lawsuit seriously. However, the fact that they’re framing the entire situation as a question of “active communications” suggests a degree of anxiety. It suggests they believe Prosser might have something damaging to reveal. Given that the lawsuit centers around leaked information regarding unannounced products and Apple’s alleged attempts to suppress negative reports, it’s reasonable to assume a serious legal challenge.

**Counterpoint:** Let’s be realistic. Prosser has a history of leaking information, often before it’s officially announced. He’s built his brand on it. Apple’s reaction isn’t about the *content* of those communications, but about the fact that Prosser was allegedly engaged with them. The company is attempting to establish a pattern of behavior that could be used to argue he knowingly infringed on their intellectual property. It’s a brilliant, if slightly paranoid, strategy.

**SEO Keywords:** Jon Prosser, Apple Lawsuit, Leaks, Tech News, Apple, Intellectual Property, Legal Issues.

—

Do you want me to respond to other claims or elements from the original summary?