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
For me, the financial aspect is largely irrelevant. If what is alleged is true, he, as journalist, crossed a line. It's one thing to cultivate sources and another to knowingly work with someone to get protected information such as trade secrets.
I'm not sure why Apple lets prototypes outside of the building without better safeguards; given the interest every blogger has in getting a scoop.
What I also don't get is why would you show the video instead of being more circumspect in what you show? I would not be surprised if prototypes have subtle differences in the UI to be able to match phones to who has them, showing it is reminiscent of the line in the Wire where Stringer Bell says "You're taking notes at a criminal conspiracy?" (NSFW)
It's clear once Apple found out it would take action, and as a result a source was burned and a person probably just guilty of being a bit lax in security precautions lost their job. I would not trust him as a journalist going forward.
Last edited:
What qualifies you to speak on the legal aspects of the case and Prosser's admitted participation in what appears to be an organized plan to steal Apple's IP?
A couple of points ... The employee has already been fired. He violated company policy failing to properly secure and lock down access. That's his punishment. So far there is no indication he was involved in their plan. If Prosser knew and Apple can convince a civil jury, that he knew the information was improperly or illegally obtained, he is as liable as the other clowns. Remember that so far, criminal charges have not been filed and the start for a guilt verdict in a civil case is not "beyond reasonable doubt."
And yes, the information was stolen no matter how you try to split hairs and that's why Apple has reached into civil courts first. Apple has every right to pursue this no matter how big or evil you think they are.
Who did Apple promise to pay and not pay aside from disputes being settled in a courtroom?
Try to be specific because you have started by casting a wide swath of generalizations about the big, bad corporate behemoth not having any moral right to protect its IP.
IANAL, but I suspect as long as he did not encourage or participate in the act of getting the material, he should have clean hands and be protected by the First Amendment. I suspect he could argue the leak was in the public interest as well. What the facts are will need to be played out in court.
If the standard was just knowing, journalists would often not be protected since sources and leaks are pretty much by definition improper in most cases.
Prosser did share this iMessage screen grab from his phone which certainly goes against Apple's version of events and implies he did not know where the information came from.
And what self respecting Apple blogger wouldn't leak things having being shown them by an employee (who maybe has an axe to grind?)
First amendment protects your rights to publish from prosecution from the government, not from a corporation or any other third party.
However there exists "reporters privilege" which are protected by shield laws so that sources are protected. Which essentially means you can't ask a reporter to reveal his or her source to a news story. But it is useless here as the sources are already known. It is Prosser's big faux pais that he did a poor attempt to protect them. Real reporters go to a good length to protect their sources.
Both Gurman and Kuo have protected their sources, so they will not be sued as long as they remain diligent. Maybe Apple do feed some of it deliberately, which i doubt, but there are no way to tell one way or another until someone come forward.
As far as i know a "reporter" is not clearly defined and likely a case has to go to the US Supreme Court for any delineation.
The First Amendment protects from "state action" and enforcement of civil liabilities by a court of law does qualify as "state action". See e.g. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan:
Reporter for the leaker tweet press
nothing worse than a influencer calling himself “reporter”
Interesting qualifier. So its ok as long as you have got an army of lawyers to fight the case?
Near ten years of trying to wriggle out of paying their way..
Apple's EU tax dispute - Wikipedia
It really doesn't matter because Prosser was in possession of stolen information. And before you say he didn't realize it was stolen, it was his responsibility to know. It is no different than if your friend loans you his bike, only to discover that the bike was stolen from someone else. Both you and your friend are guilty.
This is why real journalist are required to vet the source of the information they are given. That's the difference between real journalist and idiots on Youtube.
EXACTLY! And if you listen to any of his podcasts during the time he posted the leak, he sounded like he thought if he just replicated what he saw, he'd be fine. There's a reason why most of the time, visual leaks are from some anonymous poster on Weibo. The regions those people posting the stuff are more lax in the IP department
Can you show serious sources on that whole responsibility to know about whether my friend's things that I borrow or use actually belong to them? Do I need to see the receipts of their lawn chairs? What if they have valid receipts but have since sold them and stolen them back? What if the company my friend bought them from has stolen them?
For journalists, I'm pretty sure they're in the clear to report on any garbage they hear if they want to, unless they are involved in obtaining it illegally (like Prosser, allegedly) or signed an NDA (which wouldn't be a smart thing for a journalist to do).
There is the consideration of reputation, however, which is why the good ones use terms such as "unconfirmed reports" or "couldn't be immediately verified", etc.
Your concept of "stolen information" also has the issue that information isn't produced and doesn't travel the way physical objects do. It's possible to make up information that later turns out to be correct, there is no line of possession (it can spread), etc. etc.
I dislike Prosser, but "possession of stolen information" is not enough. Everybody who watched his videos (which I didn't, heh) is "in possession of stolen information" without vetting him. Is it a problem if they talk about it?
Well, considering that it's of material that was several months away from being unveiled, it was obvious that it wasn't obtained by legit means. Prosser has had a bad track record of shady behavior lately, like not paying freelancers. And seeing that Luke Miani turned against him, it really makes me wonder what lead to him and Sam ending the Genius Bar podcast.
I'm really not trying to defend him specifically or his (allegedly) unethical behavior, but consider whistleblowers, government leaks, etc.
Newspapers in non-dictatorships have published things they have come to know all the time, even if from the standpoint of governments or companies, those were secrets.
Whether Prosser is civilly liable for damages isn't based on him being a shady/bad/unethical person in general, but whether he's done the things alleged in the complaint.
I think this misunderstanding is at the root of some people posting hot takes like "Now Gurman will be the next, am I right, uhuhuh" here. As far as we know, Gurman hasn't done anything illegal. He'll continue to be in the clear as long as he doesn't do anything illegal himself or incites others to do so.
(This is the flip side of "Why are you defending a trillion dollar corporation?". Even at this day and age, it's possible to see aspects in favor or against either side and not be 100% on one side before the matter has been cleared up.)
🫠
Yeah, nobody knows whether an employee might be involved, it totally didn’t come up in the article, complaint, or SIXTEEN PLUS PAGES OF THIS THREAD.
There is case law contradicting this notion in some situations where news reporters have been found not liable of publishing information they knew was obtained illegally if they had no part in the illegal acquisition.
It might very well be that in this specific case those protection don't apply since a crucial aspect is the "public interest" of the information being disclosed which is not clearly defined by the courts, but the mere disclosure of information that was obtained illegally is not automatically unlawful.
Forgot to answer to this part: it is only illegal to possess stolen property if one knows or should reasonably know the property was stolen. In your example if I borrow a bike from a friend and I have no reason to believe it was stolen, I am not guilty of anything even if it was in fact stolen and found in my possession.
Note that laws against possession of stolen goods typically only apply to physical goods anyway, not intellectual property. IP is protected through a different legal framework, e.g. the Economic Espionage Act or Defend Trade Secrets Act, but the issue is that the First Amendment can limit those protections in some circumstances.
The word 'reporter' keeps getting used to describe Prosser, but is he really? or is he just a serious fan who post's things about Apple? If the video was 'monetized' then it could pose even more problems for Prosser because then it could be argued that he had a financial incentive to obtain the information about the iphone because he knew he could profit from it's information.
Looks like it's possible that this has been argued.
I don't think that any considerations about what formally constitutes a "reporter" and whether he is one has any bearing on the lawsuit because what he did wouldn't be legal to do for anyone.
It has been explained already but in the US being a "fan who post things about Apple" does still qualify as being a news reporter. Anyone who gathers and/or distributes newsworthy information qualifies, regardless of whether they are professionals working for traditional news, freelancers or amateurs.
It might, but it's not uncommon for news reporters to be for-profit and to pay their sources for information. The issue remains on whether he solicited the misappropriation and whether he has a First Amendment defense for the publishing.