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

Apple’s statement regarding Jon Prosser’s alleged involvement in leaking confidential information about upcoming Apple products feels less like a legal strategy and more like a particularly passive-aggressive shrug. Let’s unpack this tiny, infuriating little bit of corporate PR and dissect it with the precision of a surgeon – a surgeon who’s also incredibly bored.

The core argument here, distilled down to its most painfully obvious form, is that Jon Prosser hasn’t *indicated* when he might respond to the lawsuit. Let’s just pause for a moment and acknowledge the sheer brilliance of that phrasing. “Has not indicated.” It’s the legal equivalent of saying “I might… possibly… possibly not.” It’s masterful obfuscation, designed to signal absolute defiance without actually committing to anything.

Apple’s assumption – and it’s a pretty hefty one – is that Prosser’s silence constitutes an admission of guilt. This assumes that simply *not* responding to a lawsuit is inherently an admission of wrongdoing. That’s like saying if someone doesn’t immediately offer you a refund for a faulty product, they’ve admitted the product was faulty. Logic? What logic? It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of legal strategy and human behavior. People don’t respond to lawsuits because they’re intimidated, they’re strategizing, they’re seeking legal counsel, or, let’s be honest, they simply don’t care. It’s a remarkably simplistic view of a situation involving potentially millions of dollars and serious accusations of corporate espionage.

Furthermore, Apple’s statement hinges on Prosser’s claim of “active communications.” Now, let’s be clear: saying you’ve been in “active communications” with Apple is about as illuminating as a black box. It could mean anything from a brief exchange of emails to a lengthy, deeply complex series of discussions involving lawyers, product developers, and possibly a very disgruntled intern. The ambiguity is designed to muddy the waters and create maximum doubt. Apple is essentially saying, “We don’t know what he’s doing, but we’re pretending we care.”

The inherent contradiction is delicious. Apple is simultaneously asserting that Prosser hasn’t indicated a response *and* that he’s been in “active communications.” It’s a legal equivalent of saying, “I’m not going to tell you what I’m thinking, but I’m clearly thinking about it.” It’s the sort of brilliant, infuriating distraction that makes you wonder if Apple’s legal team spends their downtime playing elaborate mental games.

Let’s be realistic. Prosser has a history of leaking information, some of which has proven to be accurate. This lawsuit is, at its core, an attempt to silence a source who has repeatedly provided Apple with potentially damaging information. Apple’s defensive posture – characterized by that exquisitely vague “has not indicated” response – isn’t about justice or protecting their intellectual property; it’s about controlling the narrative and, frankly, making an example of Prosser. It’s a classic case of “punish the messenger” and it’s a really, *really* bad look.

It’s almost as if Apple’s legal strategy is built on the assumption that silence equals guilt, which is frankly, a remarkably fragile foundation for a tech giant. One wonders if they’ve considered the possibility that Prosser simply isn’t cooperating because he *doesn’t want to*—a perfectly reasonable reaction when facing a lawsuit that could devastate his channel.

The whole situation is a prime example of how a company can simultaneously appear aggressive and utterly bewildered, all wrapped up in a conveniently ambiguous statement. It’s a masterclass in PR, except the only lesson being learned is that vague statements are somehow more impressive than a straightforward explanation.

#Apple #JonProsser #LeakedInformation #Lawsuit #PR #TechNews #CorporateEspionage #IntellectualProperty #TechLaw