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

Apple’s statement about Jon Prosser – “Prosser recently said that he has been in ‘active communications with Apple.’” – is, let’s be honest, about as transparent as a frosted donut. It’s the corporate equivalent of saying, “We’re looking into things.” The problem isn’t the communication; it’s the *active* nature of it.

Let’s unpack this carefully constructed denial, because frankly, it’s dripping with the kind of calculated obfuscation that only a billion-dollar company can pull off. The core argument here, delivered with the breezy nonchalance of someone casually informing you they’re building a nuclear weapon, is that Prosser’s “active communications” don’t necessarily mean he’s planning to defend himself against the lawsuit.

This hinges on a crucial assumption: that “active communication” automatically equates to “preparing a legal defense.” It doesn’t. It could just as easily mean he’s discussing the latest iPhone rumors, desperately trying to get a scoop, or, you know, *strategizing* how to avoid a settlement. The fact that Apple presents this as a dismissal is a masterful bit of messaging. They’re essentially saying, “He’s talking to us, therefore he’s not planning to fight us.” It’s like a toddler saying, “I’m talking to you, so I’m not going to throw sand in your eyes.” The logic is, shall we say, flimsy.

The implications of this statement are significant. Prosser’s initial claims involved leaking information about unreleased Apple products, alleging insider knowledge, and suggesting a deliberate attempt by Apple to suppress negative reviews. The fact that Apple is now claiming he’s simply “communicating” allows them to frame the situation as a mere misunderstanding, or worse, paints Prosser as a somewhat erratic source of information.

It’s a classic deflection tactic. The claim that he’s engaging in “active communication” is used to muddy the waters. It’s a tactic often employed when one is trying to avoid admitting to wrongdoing, or perhaps, to minimize the damage.

Furthermore, consider this: Apple’s phrasing is remarkably vague. “Active communication” lacks any specificity. What *kind* of communication? Is it legal counsel? Technical discussions? A brainstorming session about the next Apple Watch? The ambiguity allows Apple to control the narrative and suggest that Prosser’s activities are benign, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the potential legal ramifications of his statements. It’s a brilliant smokescreen.

Let’s be clear: leaking unreleased product information is a serious breach of confidentiality, regardless of whether Prosser intended to cause harm. The fact that Apple is now trying to downplay this by focusing on the *act* of communication is a desperate attempt to shift blame and control the narrative. It’s a brilliant move, but ultimately, it’s not going to change the fact that Apple is facing a lawsuit stemming from Prosser’s leaked information.

It seems Apple’s strategy isn’t about winning the lawsuit, but about controlling the *perception* of the lawsuit. And in the age of social media, controlling the narrative is arguably more valuable than winning the legal battle.

The irony, of course, is that Jon Prosser’s entire career has been built on getting exclusive information – information that, according to Apple’s statement, he’s now apparently just “communicating” about. It’s a perfectly circular argument, and frankly, it’s exhausting.

Let’s hope the courts see through this carefully constructed ambiguity, and demand a more transparent explanation from Apple about the nature of their communications with Prosser. Until then, we’re left with a statement that’s about as clear as a puddle after a light rain.