Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

This of course, is retaliation from Apple for the "There’s something rotten at the core at Apple" article from Prosser. Speak truth to power and we will destroy you!

Also, nothing has been proven yet in court. People here act like he’s already guilty.
 
redheeler said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, because victims of alleged crimes don’t make that decision, although investigators and prosecutors will often respect a victim’s desire not to pursue the case.

However, the lawsuit doesn’t seem to claim that Lipnik’s apartment was broken into at all, and Ramacciotti’s acts as described in the lawsuit likely wouldn’t constitute criminal stalking. There is a chance that they violated whatever generic “computer crimes” law may be on the books there relating to unauthorized access, but I haven’t seen anything about a police report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redheeler
gommer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apple is the plaintiff in the lawsuit: they literally have the burden of proof... So yes, Apple has to prove the allegations and stating such is not "taking sides": it's literally how the system works.

gommer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is denying he knew the information was leaked from Apple at all: his defense seems to lie on the First Amendment protections afforded to news reporters. It's still speculation though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jouster
wigby said:
Apple tried to sue Gizmodo for buying a prototype iPhone and reporting on it so there is some precedent here.
Click to expand...

To be fair Apple never sued Gizmodo: they filed a criminal complaint, but it led to no charges against Gizmodo.

The guy who obtained and sold the lost iPhone and a facilitator got convicted though.
 
bsolar said:
Apple is the plaintiff in the lawsuit: they literally have the burden of proof... So yes, Apple has to prove the allegations and stating such is not "taking sides": it's literally how the system works.



I don't think he is denying he knew the information was leaked from Apple at all: his defense seems to lie on the First Amendment protections afforded to news reporters. It's still speculation though.
Click to expand...
The question then becomes what is the definition of a 'news reporter', is it someone non-news educated who sits at home making video's or someone who's educated in news reporting making video's. We see news reporters every day on the television reading out the news or going on locations to get the news so is Prosser in the same category as them?

The judge/jury will first have to determine if Prosser is a 'news reporter' for him to be protected under the first amendment. If he is classed as a 'news reporter' it would then have to be determined did he obtain Apple's trade secrets by foul means.

He face timed with his friend Ramacciotti who was the one who got access to the iphone. Prosser must have known how important the iphone was because it is claimed he took recordings of the face time with screen capture tools. How many people do you know is going to start up screen capture tools just before you face time them? they don't. This means Prosser knew exactly what he was doing and knew exactly what was going on.

His second tweet he is clearly lying saying he was unaware how the situation was playing out because he used screen capture tools to capture the face time with Ramacciotti on this prototype iphone. He knew EXACTLY what the situation was and how it was going to go down because activating screen capture tools on the face time proves it.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: freedomlinux
so the iOS 19 liquid glass leak a was a true "Leak", as now apple is taking legal action against it.

Does this mean every other "leak" which has not resulted in a lawsuit, has been intentionally cosigned and approved by apple themselves? Isn't a leak inherently illegal, something the company doesn't want you to know? It confounds me that celebrated apple "leakers" that never receive reprimands but instead are given high positions in editorial news rooms are the good guys and collect unwavering adoration from apple fans.
 
laptech said:
The judge/jury will first have to determine if Prosser is a 'news reporter' for him to be protected under the first amendment. If he is classed as a 'news reporter' it would then have to be determined did he obtain Apple's trade secrets by foul means.
Click to expand...

This is false. Every American has a First Amendment right. Journalists do not have special rights or defenses versus non-journalists. Journalists are not even credentialed like doctors and lawyers. The issue in this case is alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, which has nothing to do with free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, Smartuser and IJustWannaTalk
redheeler said:
If you bought a top-of-the-line Intel Mac in late 2019 / early 2020, you might think so too.
Click to expand...
Right, another tired complaint about buying just before a new model comes out. Apple should personally contact you and advise you to hold off for a week or two? Not gonna happen and NOBODY does that, ever. Then the buyer rages on about how they should be able return what they bought and get the new model as an even exchange. Again, not gonna happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smartuser
bsolar said:
That depends on the "newsworthiness" of the information being reported balanced against the right of privacy.

In your example, publishing intimate pictures of a non-public figure would be very unlikely to be defensible, but publishing intimate pictures of a public figure that e.g. prove they were having an affair might.
Click to expand...
JFC your ethics are SHADY. There is no justification to post non-consensual nudes of anyone.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Vaporbaked94
Neil J. Squillante said:
This is false. Every American has a First Amendment right. Journalists do not have special rights or defenses versus non-journalists. Journalists are not even credentialed like doctors and lawyers. The issue in this case is alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, which has nothing to do with free speech.
Click to expand...
The judge and jury do have to consider whether what is being published is "newsworthy" however.
 
Ones party is a company the other is someone I've never heard of so if I'm forced to choose I'll choose the person to win this fight.
 
IJustWannaTalk said:
JFC your ethics are SHADY. There is no justification to post non-consensual nudes of anyone.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can come to any conclusion about my ethics whatsoever. Stating that something might or might not be legal has nothing to do with endorsing it or arguing whether it's ethical.

If you believe the law might allow for something you disagree with, would you argue it's illegal instead?
 
Prosser is not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. Apple will bleed his resources dry if makes any attempt to defend his actions.

He engaged in industrial espionage using stolen information he obtained illegally. He deserves the legal beating he is about to endure.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: freedomlinux
bsolar said:
I'm not giving nor claiming to be giving any legal advice. If you would be coming to me for legal advice I would tell you to hire an attorney. Whether the case is "unrelated", we'll see.



Prosser is stating otherwise though. Now, I don't necessarily believe he's telling the truth, but neither I blindly believe the plaintiff's allegations. Nothing is "clear" until both parties will have their chance of present their side of the story.



Talk about citing unrelated cases... how would a claim of First Amendment protection even begin to cover "stolen goods"? But you can bet it can cover reporting information.



If he colluded in obtaining the information illegally I'm all with Apple suing him into oblivion. If he only published the information a third-party misappropriated without his involvement, I don't think he is liable for that.



That could actually be perfectly legal for you to do if the private information you would decide to publish were newsworthy enough. There is plenty of case law supporting that.
Click to expand...
Firstly, the applicant has sworn a signed affidavit which in law is facts in evidence. If you make any false claims in a sworn affidavit you’re breaking the law. Apple making these claims on an affidavit strongly indicates they have the evidence to back up their claims, lest they themselves could be sued.


Secondly the first amendment does not grant protections when unlawful activity has taken place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
Reactions: freedomlinux
etichi said:
You have never experienced Court in real life, have you? Apple is no saint and people/corporations lie to get what they want.
Click to expand...
As a paralegal I have been in many courtrooms and know exactly how the law works. You do realise a sworn affidavit is a lawful claim to have facts in evidence don't you? And you do realise that making a false statement on an affidavit is unlawful? You do realise if Apple can't produce the evidence to back up their sworn statement, they themselves can be sued?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kr0019 said:
You’re cute. As a paralegal I have been in many courtrooms and know exactly how the law works, which is more than I could say about you. You do realise a sworn affidavit is a lawful claim to have facts in evidence don't you? And you do realise that making a false statement on an affidavit is unlawful? You do realise if Apple can't produce the evidence to back up their sworn statement, they themselves can be sued? Now what's your experience in law?
Click to expand...
You’re even more cute to think that people tell the truth just because they raise their right hand. Corporations are text book psychopaths.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Vaporbaked94
ashdelacroix said:
Apple has form, actually, in lying to courts. They have been severely told off for it. Besides, this isn't about lies so much as lawyers building a case and, as ever, over-egging the pudding. You go in hard and knock the wind out of the defendant as far as possible. I've worked extensively with lawyers and also battled against them (usually successfully). They all use the same "tricks". The number of times they claim validity of claim or the existence of evidence when there is none! Unbelievable what they say when their client is paying for them to say it.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant what may or may not have happened in the past, but what does matter is what is sworn to on the affidavit that was signed in the filing for this originating motion. Regardless of what you believe, making a false statement on a sworn affidavit is against the law and can be prosecuted against and/or sued for. As a paralegal I'm well aware what lawyers get up, and I'm just as well aware of what tricks and lies defendants make. I'm no advocate for Apple, I'm an advocate for the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: FatLouie
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back