July 2025: Apple sues YouTuber John Prosser and his acquaintance Michael Ramamacotti. The charges are theft of trade secrets. July 2026: Prosser finally officially responds. Between these dates — a missed deadline, a default judgment against him, and months during which he continued posting videos on YouTube as if the case didn't exist.
What exactly does Apple claim
According to Apple, Ramamacotti used geolocation to track the absence of engineer Ethan Lipnik, gained access to his work iPhone, and showed Prosser an unreleased iOS version via FaceTime. Prosser allegedly recorded the call using screen capture tools, after which he created mockups based on what he saw — and published them on Front Page Tech months before WWDC 2025. The videos revealed details of iOS 26's new transparent design, which Apple later branded as Liquid Glass.
Defense: "I was just watching"
In his official court response, Prosser constructs a defense based on complete denial and shifting responsibility. He denies that any of the information he viewed contained trade secrets, and denies knowing who owned the iPhone. Prosser also denies participating in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme with Ramamacotti to harm Apple.
The key argument from Prosser's lawyers is procedural: Ramamacotti's action of showing iOS 19 features during the FaceTime call was not provoked by Prosser, and therefore Ramamacotti is "fully responsible" for disclosing Apple's alleged trade secrets.
"Regardless of what the media reports, and regardless of what is written in court documents — I have genuinely maintained active communication with Apple since the very beginning of this case"
— John Prosser, in a statement to The Verge, October 2025
The court did not see the logic in this argument at the time: Prosser missed the established deadline for responding to the lawsuit, prompting Apple's lawyers to file for a default judgment, which the court issued in October 2025.
Ramamacotti plays differently
While Prosser avoided procedural steps, his co-defendant chose the opposite tactic. Ramamacotti allowed Apple to conduct a forensic examination of an additional device, agreed to supplement answers to interrogatories, and offered to undergo further deposition. Apple and Ramamacotti have been unofficially discussing a possible settlement since at least October 2024.
In his separate court response, Ramamacotti admitted that he gained access to the iPhone and showed Prosser certain iOS 26 features via FaceTime, but denied any conspiracy. The $650 payment to Prosser's address mentioned in the lawsuit was, according to Ramamacotti, unrelated to their interactions — Prosser, for his part, also denies any payment arrangement.
How Prosser returned to the case
In June 2026, Apple and Prosser jointly petitioned the court to vacate the default judgment against him — provided he submit documents he had not yet provided. The judge granted the motion: the default judgment was vacated, and Prosser was given ten days to file a formal response to Apple's lawsuit.
Thus the official response filed on July 2, 2026, is Prosser's first real procedural step nearly a year after the lawsuit was filed. Prosser denies possessing any of Apple's confidential information in this case that had not already been disclosed to the company.
Why this is more than a dispute between two people
Prosser's case is the first major precedent where Apple sues directly against a public commentator, rather than just an insider. Apple rarely resorts to direct lawsuits, preferring cease-and-desist letters and quiet settlements — but a series of iOS leaks pushed the company toward stricter protection of secrets.
The specific question that the case's outcome will resolve: is viewing someone else's screen via FaceTime sufficient grounds for liability for disclosing a trade secret — if the viewer claims they didn't know what they saw was confidential. If the court answers "yes," the line between technology journalism and industrial espionage will become significantly narrower.
