Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


A joint status report filed yesterday in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against YouTuber Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti shows Prosser is still failing to comply with discovery, prompting Apple to seek a court order to compel him.

Jon-Prosser-Rainbow.jpg

The latest filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday, covers developments since the parties' last update in February 2026. It notes that Apple served Prosser with document and deposition subpoenas on February 3, and that while he has provided some responsive materials, he has failed to fully respond to certain requests and has not responded at all to others. Apple has extended his deadline multiple times and says it has still not received the limited discovery it needs to understand the full scope of what confidential information Prosser and Ramacciotti obtained and how they got it. Apple says it now intends to file a Motion for an Order to Show Cause in the Northern District of Ohio to force his compliance.

The filing also reveals that Prosser has indicated he is retaining counsel and intends to move to set aside the default judgment entered against him in October 2025, after he missed the court deadline to respond to Apple's complaint. At the time, Prosser told The Verge he had "been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of this case," a claim Apple subsequently disputed in court documents.

Apple filed the lawsuit in July 2025, accusing Prosser and Ramacciotti of misappropriating trade secrets by gaining unauthorized access to a development iPhone belonging to former Apple software engineer Ethan Lipnik. According to Apple's complaint, Ramacciotti accessed the device while Lipnik was away and showed Prosser the contents over FaceTime, revealing details about what was then called iOS 19 and later unveiled at WWDC 2025 as iOS 26. Prosser published videos on his YouTube channel showing recreated renderings of the software's Liquid Glass design months before Apple's announcement. Lipnik was terminated for failing to follow Apple's policies for securing development devices.

Ramacciotti's posture in the case stands in contrast to Prosser's. According to the filing, he has allowed Apple to forensically review an additional device, agreed to supplement his interrogatory responses, and offered to sit for a follow-up deposition once Apple completes its third-party discovery, including any deposition of Prosser. Apple and Ramacciotti have been informally discussing a potential settlement since at least October. Apple is seeking monetary damages and an injunction barring both defendants from further disclosing any of the company's confidential information.

The parties have scheduled a further status update with the court for June 10, 2026.

Article Link: Jon Prosser Still Not Fully Cooperating in Apple's iOS 26 Trade Secrets Lawsuit
 
Like him or not, Prosser is protected under the free press clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Apple has to show he colluded with this source for unfair gain or bad faith. While the leaker is publicly known, they would have to prove he didn't additionally have another source they don't know about.

They will lose this lawsuit, and probably know it. The process itself is the punishment here, they are making an example so they can attempt to control future leaks. What is curious is they don't seem to care at all about Mark Gurman's highly accurate reporting, suggesting it is actually marketing.
 
I wonder what his plan is.
He has no plan. If you've read anything about him from the people that have worked with him over the years, he operates perpetually in a post-hoc, damage-control stance to paper over his shady actions. He's quickly found out you can't necessarily run the same game in a legal proceeding, especially when you haven't retained competent counsel.
 
His first mistake was not immediately getting a lawyer. "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." - Abraham Lincoln
Consider one or both of the following:
1) He (Prosser) has consulted an attorney(ies) and they decline to represent him. This happens all the time for various reasons.
2) He is unwilling or is unable to afford counsel, at least counsel who he wants to represent him. Particularly if said counsel requires a substantial retainer in this case. Personally, I don’t see the likelihood of a significant windfall in his favor, so if I’m right about this a significant retainer would be a must for many of the best civil lawyers to represent him.

Side note—while that quote is popularly attributed to Lincoln, there is no historical record of him saying nor writing it. Maybe he did, but there is no record. And it is recorded being used early in the 19th century by someone else.
 
Last edited:
Consider one or both of the following:
1) He (Prosser) has consulted an attorney(ies) and they decline to represent him. This happens all the time for various reasons.
2) He is unwilling or is unable to afford counsel, at least counsel who he wants to represent him. Particularly if said counsel requires a substantial retainer in this case. Personally, I don’t see the likelihood of a significant windfall in his favor, so if I’m right about this a significant retainer would be a must for many of the best civil lawyers to represent him.
3) He has retained counsel, as the article states.

And he may have been advised by his lawyer to not respond to every request from Apple. It's not his job to make Apple's prosecution easier, right? If lawyer TV shows have taught us anything, you should always stall discovery as much as possible and then flood them with so much paperwork at the last second that they can't figure any of it out before everyone has to appear in court.
 
Last edited:
Like him or not, Prosser is protected under the free press clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Apple has to show he colluded with this source for unfair gain or bad faith. While the leaker is publicly known, they would have to prove he didn't additionally have another source they don't know about.

They will lose this lawsuit, and probably know it. The process itself is the punishment here, they are making an example so they can attempt to control future leaks. What is curious is they don't seem to care at all about Mark Gurman's highly accurate reporting, suggesting it is actually marketing.
Ah mate, might wanna reread the First Amendment; it clearly states that Congress shell not make any laws that prohibit… plus, your rights only go so far. Outside of due process (and fair treatment), once you (imho) infringe on someone else’s rights, your rights are gone.

What Prosser is doing is pretty much corporate espionage for personal gain, there is no ground for the First Amendment.
If this had been a case of whistleblowering coverage for bad behavior by Apple, that would be a totally different thing, but this is about ‘trade secrets’ which a company has a right to protect. Just like you have a right to protect yourself and your property.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.