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

Apple’s statement regarding Jon Prosser’s alleged communications is, frankly, a masterclass in obfuscation. Let’s break down this meticulously crafted denial and dissect it with the precision of a surgeon—except instead of a patient, we’re dealing with a PR nightmare.

The core argument here is that Apple claims Prosser hasn’t indicated a timeline for responding to the lawsuit. And let’s be perfectly clear: this isn’t about a timeline. It’s about *denying communication*. That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? It’s a defensive maneuver, a frantic attempt to squelch the narrative that Prosser is, in fact, involved in some clandestine activity with the company.

The assumption underpinning Apple’s statement is that *any* communication with Prosser automatically equates to conspiracy. This is spectacularly flawed logic. Do you know how many journalists talk to Apple? Hundreds of thousands, probably. Do you think every conversation constitutes a grand, nefarious plot to reveal unannounced product releases? Of course not. It’s an utterly unreasonable leap to assume a simple exchange of information automatically transforms into a coordinated effort to undermine Apple’s secrecy.

Let’s consider the phrasing: “has not indicated.” Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. It’s like saying, “He hasn’t told us *when* he’ll possibly consider a response” – which, by implication, is “he *is* considering it.” It’s the linguistic equivalent of a shrug, designed to generate maximum suspicion without actually providing an answer. It’s a tactic perfected by lawyers who’ve spent their careers arguing that silence is golden (and incredibly effective at burying inconvenient truths).

The article itself doesn’t offer any concrete evidence of wrongdoing on Prosser’s part. It simply reports that he *said* he’s been in “active communications.” Active communications about *what*, exactly? The fact that he was discussing upcoming Apple product releases? That’s what insiders do. Journalists ask questions; insiders answer. It’s the entire model of reporting. To frame this as some sinister plot is just absurd.

Furthermore, the implication that Apple is somehow *shocked* that Prosser is communicating is laughable. Apple is a company that spends a considerable amount of time and money carefully managing its image. They routinely leak information to favored tech journalists. They’ve been caught briefing bloggers about product features *before* official announcements. So, the idea that they’re outraged because Prosser is engaging in a slightly more open dialogue is a prime example of hypocrisy – a beautiful, expertly crafted hypocrisy, but hypocrisy nonetheless.

It’s worth noting that Apple’s legal team could have simply said, “Prosser hasn’t responded to our request for comment.” That would have been honest, direct, and avoided this whole performance. But, that wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining, would it? This response is about controlling the narrative, and in the age of social media, controlling the narrative is almost always more important than simply answering a question.

The whole situation reeks of a company desperately trying to control the flow of information, and using a vague statement to avoid admitting that their carefully constructed secrecy is being challenged. It’s a classic case of “deny, deny, deny,” and frankly, it’s kind of charming, in a deeply cynical way.

(Keywords: Jon Prosser, Apple, lawsuit, product leaks, tech news, PR, communication, secrecy, conspiracy, denial, tech)