After getting a second chance to formally respond to Apple’s lawsuit, Jon Prosser filed his response today, disputing the company’s account of how it obtained and published details about the Liquid Glass update. Here are the details.
A little background
A few days ago, US District Judge James Donato given Jon Prosser’s motion to set aside default entered against him and gave him another chance to respond to Apple’s complaint.
A default was entered against him thereafter missed several deadlines In response to Apple’s complaint about the leak of the Liquid Glass redesign, it essentially meant he would no longer be able to formally challenge the company’s claims and the trial would proceed without his presence.
It was a very different situation compared to the other defendant in the suit, Michael Ramacciotti, who was now staying at the home of former Apple employee Ethan Lipnick, whose development became the source of the iPhone leak.
According to Apple’s complaint, Ramacciotti learned the device’s password and accessed it without Lipnik’s knowledge. Later, he joined a FaceTime call with Prosser and showed him a development version of what would eventually become iOS 26.
Prosser would go on to release two different videos featuring recreated versions of the leaked interface changes and app redesign.
After Apple announced iOS 26, the company filed a federal lawsuit v. Ramacciotti and Prosser, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Although Ramacciotti responded quickly and began cooperating with the discovery process, Prosser missed multiple deadlines and failed to formally respond to the complaint. However, he controversial he said he ignored the lawsuit, saying the lawsuit “has been actively engaged with Apple since its early stages.”
Despite his claims, Apple asked the court to open a default against him and the court granted the request.
Prosser eventually retained an attorney and worked with Apple to ask the court to overturn the default after agreeing to release outstanding discovery. Both sides argued that allowing him to participate was the most efficient way to move the case forward.
Judge James Donato granted the motion, bringing us to today.
Prosser responds
In a filing filed today, Prosser disputes several aspects of Apple’s complaint, most notably that he “planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme (…) to harm Apple.
From the document:
Prosser denies that an Apple employee conspired to hack iPhone development in order to steal Apple’s secrets, and denies involvement in any such conspiracy or coordinated scheme alleged by Apple.
According to the document, Prosser “did not agree to anything in advance (such as paying Ramacciotti) for the communications and actions of others.”
“Any payments made by Prosser were subsequent to the alleged theft,” the document added.
Prosser’s response acknowledges that he participated in a FaceTime call with Ramacciotti that detailed what became iOS 26, but claims that Prosser didn’t know if the iPhone belonged to Lipnick or “if iOS 19 was in fact ‘unreleased’.”
As for the payment, the filing says, “Prosser acknowledges that it shared a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti following the publication of Prosser’s videos in order to maintain exclusive contact with Ramacciotti,” but adds that “Prosser terminated its relationship with Ramacciotti after learning how Ramacciotti obtained its proprietary information.”
He also describes Prosser’s three videos as “reporting on information as any news organization would report on exclusives.”
Finally, the response states, “Ramacciotti’s act of exhibiting the features was not caused by Prosser, and thus Ramacciotti is solely responsible for the disclosure of Apple’s alleged trade secrets, if any.”
As for the settlement sought by Apple, the filing disputes that the company suffered any damages, claims that any alleged losses are speculative, and claims that Apple failed to mitigate them.
Prosser is asking the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice (meaning Apple would be barred from bringing the same claims again), award him attorneys’ fees and costs, and allow a jury trial on all relevant issues.
You can read his full response below:
What do you think of John Prosser’s answer? Let us know in the comments.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
