Jon Prosser is arguing that Apple's alleged trade secrets are now public, while the company seeks his YouTube revenue records, channel analytics, and third-party messages to investigate his alleged financial gain from leaks about iOS 26.


In a new joint status report filed yesterday, Apple said it is still waiting for YouTube revenue reports, channel analytics, and third-party communications requested from Prosser more than three months ago. The materials concern his alleged financial gain and how Apple's confidential information was obtained and shared, continuing the discovery dispute detailed in August.

Prosser's lawyer says he has already fulfilled the discovery obligations agreed to when the parties sought to set aside the default against him. He says Apple keeps requesting more documents each time records are produced.

His attorney also argues that Apple's identified trade secrets are now public following the release of ‌iOS 26‌ and macOS 26, and questions whether some were ever secret given earlier third-party disclosures. He says Apple's written descriptions lack corresponding images, making its claims difficult to assess.

Apple disputes that its disclosure is deficient and says it is willing to discuss it with the defendants' lawyers. It also says Prosser's deposition testimony and his Signal exchanges with Michael Ramacciotti suggest the pair coordinated to obtain and disclose confidential information for financial gain, contradicting Ramacciotti's denial of a conspiracy.

Ramacciotti wants to distance his case from Prosser's defense, with his lawyer saying he is "unwilling to be drawn into it." He has asked Judge James Donato for an October conference at which Apple would explain what further evidence it needs, followed by a deadline within 30 days to dismiss its claims against him or commit to trial. He now conditions a second deposition and updated written answers on Apple first providing a roadmap to resolution.

Apple filed the lawsuit in July 2025, alleging that Prosser and Ramacciotti coordinated to access an Apple employee's development iPhone and profit from unreleased software information. Prosser published videos showing recreations of ‌iOS 26‌'s Liquid Glass redesign before Apple's announcement. Apple is seeking damages and an injunction against further disclosure of its trade secrets.

In his July 2 response to the lawsuit, Prosser admitted participating in a FaceTime call during which Ramacciotti showed him features running on the development device. He denied participating in a coordinated scheme or that the information he viewed constituted trade secrets.

If the court does not grant Ramacciotti's request for an October status conference, the parties plan to submit their next update on December 2.
This article, "Leaker Jon Prosser Pushes Back as Apple Seeks His YouTube Data" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple's $634 million patent loss to medical technology company Masimo has just gotten even bigger, after a federal judge ordered Apple to pay an additional $184 million in interest on what it owes (via Bloomberg Law).


The ruling takes Apple's bill to around $818 million, but that doesn't include any post-judgment interest continuing to accrue until the judgment is paid.

Judge James Selna rejected Apple's argument that adding prejudgment interest would constitute a windfall for Masimo, citing U.S. Supreme Court guidance that "interest from the time that the royalty payments would have been received merely serves to make the patent owner whole." Put another way, Masimo is being compensated for as long as it was deprived of royalty payments that it theoretically would have received during the infringement period.

It didn't all go Masimo's way, though. Selna also declined Masimo's request to calculate it at a 7 percent rate, which would have put Apple's interest bill at $243 million. Instead, the court used Masimo's own borrowing rate, compounding annually from when the infringement began.

Masimo is also behind the separate patent dispute that led to a U.S. import ban on certain Apple Watch models and resulted in Apple disabling blood oxygen functionality on affected newly sold models. Apple in 2025 introduced a redesigned version of the feature.

The dispute here is concerned with a Masimo pulse-oximetry patent. In November 2025, a jury found that Apple Watch features including heart-rate notifications infringed Masimo's patent and awarded the company $634 million.

Apple subsequently tried to overturn or reduce the award, but Selna upheld the verdict in July. The patent in question expired in June 2022, so the ruling related to historical Apple Watch sales and has no effect on the heart-rate features in current Apple Watch models.
This article, "Apple's $634 Million Apple Watch Patent Bill Just Got Even Bigger" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

An antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple of blocking tap-to-pay competition is moving forward and will see banks and credit unions able to band together to sue Apple.


U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White this week certified a class in the lawsuit. It will include any U.S. entities that issued any payment card enabled for Apple Pay and paid Apple a fee for ‌Apple Pay‌ transactions on that payment card. He also denied a motion from Apple to exclude expert testimony that plaintiff attorneys allege offers proof Apple has monopoly power over the mobile wallet market.

First filed in 2022, the suit claims Apple illegally collects up to $1 billion annually in fees by preventing rivals from accessing the iPhone's NFC chip to build mobile wallets that would compete with ‌Apple Pay‌. When an iPhone user buys something with a card linked to ‌Apple Pay‌, the card issuer has to pay Apple a 0.15 percent fee for credit cards and half a cent for debit cards, according to the lawsuit. If you make a $1,000 purchase via ‌Apple Pay‌, Apple collects $1.50 from the card issuer.

The complaint alleges that Apple forces card issuers to pay fees by making ‌Apple Pay‌ the only tap-to-pay option. It points to Google's Android, which supports multiple wallets and does not collect a fee from card issuers for contactless payments. It suggests Apple would not be able to continue to charge "substantial fees" if it were forced to support other mobile wallets on Apple devices.

Apple has changed its policies since the lawsuit was filed. As of iOS 18.1, developers are able to offer NFC contactless payments in their apps. Developers have access to the NFC chip in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, the European Economic Area, and many other countries.

Attorneys are seeking repayment of the fees card issuers have paid and injunctive relief to "put an end to Apple's policies."
This article, "Banks and Credit Unions to Team Up Against Apple Pay Fees" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums