Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Jon Prosser Over iOS 26 Leaks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This lawsuit has no merit. Jon Prosser leaked iOS 19. What Apple unveiled was iOS 26. iOS 19 doesn't exist.
Prosser's lawyers working furiously to get this thrown out over this technicality
Man that is so funny 😆 this would be great if someone took your post and used it as a script for a ai Jon prosser video with looking like him using this defense 😂🤣👍🏻I can see Prosser's defense now 'I was at my mates house and whilst he was out the room I noticed this unfamiliar iphone on the couch so being an Apple fan I naturally picked it up and had a look at it. I played around with it, face timed on it, took some pictures of it then put it back down on the couch before my mate came back. My mate came back with someone I had not known before, this guy is a friend of my mate who was also visiting. It was this guy who picked up the iphone from the couch. I did not know it was a special Apple thing because if I had I would not have posted what I did'.
So they stalked Ethan Lipnik, broke into his apartment, and accessed his iPhone without his permission using a stolen passcode. I'm not a legal expert but it sure seems like that's illegal to me. Could Lipnik have pressed charges if this is actually true?
If Apple can sue Prosser over reporting news, can they come after MacRumors for almost spoiling the entire keynote address the week before WWDC? I ask that question not as a criticism, but more along the lines of what is the difference between what Prosser does to what Gurman does to what MacRumors reports? Why is apple doing this now, other they they are losing various other lawsuits and need the money? It seems awfully petty for them to do this.
Easy to do if they got the material illegally. And, in this case, he was reporting unreleased material. Showing video was his downfall. Now, if he plotted to get it illegal as well, he's screwed.
Much to the chagrin of rumor sites everywhere Apple needs to finally crack down on leakers. Why? Because rumors and leaks find their way to sites like MacRumors and instantly become ‘verified’ facts that generate controversy and disinformation. When Apple changes its mind on features or hardware the blogosphere is ablaze with conspiracy theories about what happened.
Just look at this thread where many think they have a right to know what Apple is up to. Some apparently think Apple should be forced to release information about upcoming products as a matter of law.
Just look at this thread where many think they have a right to know what Apple is up to. Some apparently think Apple should be forced to release information about upcoming products as a matter of law.
It’s not petty if money exchanged hands in obtaining corporate secrets. It IS illegal.
Prosser actively participated and planned a conspiracy involving stealing a development iPhone and exploring the pre-release software. He obviously knew the info was gathered through improper means, which violated the law (DTSA).
Gurman, Kuo, and MacRumors gather small pieces of information from engineers and supply chain and create their own journalistic impressions. They do not ask their sources to provide one big piece of trade secret info (“show me iOS 19”) but rather ask sources open ended questions and gather impressions from a number of sources. This is why it’s stupid when people point out Gurman and Kuo are not 100% accurate. They can’t be if they want to stay above the law.
In short, Prosser hacked, bribed, or stole to get info. Other analysts have plausible deniability because they never ask for real names and analyze many small pieces of info to create their own impressions.
Last edited:
If you bought a top-of-the-line Intel Mac in late 2019 / early 2020, you might think so too.
Reporters probably get info illegally all the time. The difference is Prosser got found. Reporters aren’t granted immunity from breaking the law. They’re just good at hiding their sources.
And I believe you suggested that the text messages between Prosser and the other parties might not be real? I would then have to ask you - what would you think the conversation between Prosser and Ram would have looked like, for this to fit your definition of "published the information a third-party misappropriated without his involvement"?
"yo Jon check DIS out!" And Jon goes "cool man!" and just went ahead and did it? Everything about the article suggests that no, there was a lot more that happened to get all this information.
It does seem like you're siding with Jon no matter how impartial you try to spin yourself as. You're probably gonna go "I have stated nothing but a neutral stance" or something similar.
Certainly, but they’re not bribing people. It’s the money where he’s framed himself here and I guess there’s pretty hard evidence of that.
Had he just had sources Apple wouldn’t have pursued this.
And how much more do you think Apple could have done? Because clearly the device wasn't just something that was left behind at a bar this time around. Maybe they could have insisted that the device can never leave the building, that would be one thing for sure.
Cool, that's awesome that law is that easy. You should be a lawyer!
No, someone suggested they might not be real and I pointed out if it goes to trial any doctored message would come to light.
He seemed surprised, which doesn't add up with collusion IMHO
I stated already that if Apple proves he colluded in obtaining the information illegally he should be sued into oblivion. I believe he should not be liable otherwise, even if he published the information.
Said that, it is IMHO incorrect to question his status as news reporter (he is one even as freelancer) or outright accepting Apple's side of the story as fact.
Well, we don't know if they actually broken into his apartment to get to the device. That's huge if it did happen, but I would wager what really happened was far more boring. They would definitely have needed to distract the guy, delay him in some manner...no way he'd just willingly place his career in jeopardy over this.
He's fired by Apple and I can only guess that whatever defense he had, didn't hold up. Was the device not allowed to leave the premise, and he did so anyways? That would make sense.
Your wording still suggests you're on Jon's side more so than Apple's, when you say "if Apple proves". Well, what if the jury decides, yup he's dirty, but is it proof, though?
But sticking to the facts. Information that was not authorized by Apple, was disseminated, and by Prosser. The level of detail, as well as the context looks pretty damning. If Prosser framed the entire thing totally differently, if he said "oh here's what the latest build of IOS might look like, based on rumors, just total guesswork, and speculation! And if I turn out to be right, well it's just luck!" then that would be totally different.
Don't let dev devices leave the building. Better yet, build a check out/in system for developer devices so that they have to be returned same day (so that they can still reasonably field test). Spin it as something about improving work/life balance.
Prosser would be protected if he is truly a journalist and was given but did not participate in obtaining the information. But those are big questions.