am i meant to feel bad? hate the mofo.
shouldn't have involved money on stealing company assets lololo
shouldn't have involved money on stealing company assets lololo
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
No one is treating it like a stealth bomber. Espionage is a criminal offense and punishable by death.
If Apple's versions of events are true, those involved stole company property. This goes beyond a leaker sending screenshots. Their 'friend' could also sue them for breaking into his house, his phone, and then causing him to lose his job.
That’s not liquid glass.
What was the conspiracy? It wasn’t to go design “subliminal” glass before Apple released their product. The conspiracy was less sinister than coup… it was for the likes.
I have no horse in this race so I'm fascinated to see how this ends regardless.
Leaks and Rumours massively increase interest around a product, which let’s be honest Apple desperately need considering how dull and predictable they have become since Steve’s death. If Apple had any sense they would be encouraging it, (or even involved in it)…not going after the people who do it. Suing someone for this strengthens the image of them being just another soulless corporation and nothing like the creative company Steve tried to portray.
So they could have just sent him a Cease and Desist in April and be done with it but instead Apple willfully let him continue to leak things just so they could get a payday of what will amount to peanuts from a blogger?
That's everything you need to know about the modern version of Apple.
That's everything you need to know about the modern version of Apple.
I don't quite get why Prosser gets such hate here. If it happened like Apple claims, the lawsuit against him would be legitimate... but Prosser has already said (and demonstrated at least some evidence backing it up) that he got the video without knowing its source and didn't coordinate with anyone to break into someone's phone.
And assuming that's true, I don't see anything close to illegal here. Sure, Apple probably wouldn't want the info to be public, but nor do they want Kuo and others dropping details to the public.
And assuming that's true, I don't see anything close to illegal here. Sure, Apple probably wouldn't want the info to be public, but nor do they want Kuo and others dropping details to the public.
The conspiracy is Prosser promised payment to Ramacciotti to commit the unlawful act of stealing the phone to view the software.
Whether it's stealing a stack of cash in a bank robbery or lines of code from pre-release software, it's illegal.
I refuse to believe that ANYONE bought an iPhone 16 for Apple Intelligence. Hell, most people I know would happily buy a device that specifically does not do "AI" **** (I purposefully put AI in quotes because what is currently being advertised as artificial intelligence is certainly artificial, but is by no metric "intelligent.")
I'm not really sure what you expect Prosser to say. That he planned with Ramacciotti to form a criminal enterprise to steal the phone and share secrets to earn money on YouTube?
Someone who stole money from a bank is going to tell you they found a stuffed duffel bag in the park.
Genuine very simple question for those in the US.
Let's say my friend works for Apple and has a prototype device.
He comes over for an evening and shows me the device.
I then create a video to show and talk about everything I've seen.
Am I in trouble for leaking secrets to the world, or is my mate in trouble for showing something secret to me?
Let's say my friend works for Apple and has a prototype device.
He comes over for an evening and shows me the device.
I then create a video to show and talk about everything I've seen.
Am I in trouble for leaking secrets to the world, or is my mate in trouble for showing something secret to me?
Conspiracy is still conspiracy. Apple has every right to protect their trade secrets, regardless of what those secrets are (or how you feel about them). If anything, Apple NOT going after Prosser on this could amount to legal trouble for Apple from shareholders who don't feel Apple is doing enough to protect their trade secrets (again, secrets are secrets regardless of how you feel about them).
Last edited:
How do you know they didn't send him a cease and desist? Or maybe they didn't have enough evidence at the time to do such a thing, and once they figured out the depths of what Prosser did, a simple cease and desist wasn't enough.
More than likely both, but it depends.
If your friend signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with Apple (and it's pretty much a guarantee that they did, especially if they were given a prototype device), and that friend showed anyone that device who had not also signed the same NDA, then they have broken the NDA and are in legal trouble with Apple.
As for your role in all of this, if your friend told you nothing about the NDA or that any of what they showed you was a secret, then you do have a good level of plausible deniability as your legal defense that you did nothing wrong. If, on the other hand, your friend specifically told you what they were showing you was covered under an NDA, etc. and you still went ahead and shared everything publicly, then you have essentially aided and abetted in the theft of trade secrets. You may not be in as much legal hot water as your friend, but you certainly knew what you were doing was violating a legal agreement that your friend signed.
On the flip side, if your friend DID NOT sign a NDA, (or any other legally binding document indicating that the prototype device they had contained trade secrets, and they were not allowed to share those secrets with anyone), then your friend could do whatever the hell they wanted with the info they were given and Apple wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Regardless of how you feel about Prosser, if Apple feels they have evidence that Prosser knew what he was doing (and based on some of the things he's posted, I'd actually say it was pretty damn likely he knew, at least on some level, that the info he was getting was obtained through less than legitimate means) it is Apple's legal requirement to go after him to protect their trade secrets.
Some may seem this as petty, but Apple could actually get in their own legal trouble from their shareholders if they don't do everything in their power to protect their trade secrets.
Yes, 100%. Because you would know or have reason to know an Apple employee showing you a prototype violates trade secrets. Then you use that trade secret to make money on YouTube.
Even if you had zero knowledge about NDAs and your friend did not explicitly tell you it's a secret, the court would likely find you guilty.
The law is based on what a reasonable person ought to know or conclude. Your friend works for one of the most valuable companies in the world. He's showing you in private, not at a town hall meeting or live TV. You know it's a prototype. You're not a 115 year old lady unfamiliar with technology.
Last edited:
I would buy the iPhone 16 for the camera layout but my iPhone 11 Pro Max is still fine.
this forum is hysterical. article literally lays out how dude was spot on, the multi trillion dollar corporation is suing them for it, and y'all still have to parrot this nonsense.
He could certainly say nothing. And let his lawyers handle it. Saying that he didn’t wasn’t involved (and showing some form of “receipts”) is a choice. And one that might tell us something.
At the very least it should tell us to assume innocence until proven guilty. Why take the word of Apples lawyers at face value and immediately condemn the man? I see no reason for it.
…And yes, same as if you accused someone of robbing. I have no reason to assume they didn’t just find it in a park like they claim — until you prove otherwise.
If he leaked Liquid Glass — the greatest innovation of the last 30 years — then he deserves whatever he gets.
Prosser isn't a smart guy. That's why he's in this hole in the first place. You think Prosser has lawyers? Why do you think Gurman decided to work for Bloomberg? It's so he can get protection from Bloomberg's army of lawyers. Those lawyers would recommend against saying anything publicly and vet every article before publication.
Apple doesn't randomly sue people and they've got much bigger fish to fry.