Following a couple of deadline extensions, Michael Ramacciotti’s lawyer sent in his answer to Apple’s complaint in the Jon Prosser case. Here are the details.
A bit of background
Last July, Apple filed a lawsuit against Jon Prosser over two videos he published on his YouTube channel, with details of what turned out to be the Liquid Glass visual revamp.
In the complaint, Apple claims that the videos were made possible after another defendant, Michael Ramacciotti, broke into the development iPhone of a friend, Ethan Lipnik, who works at Apple.
Apple claims that Prosser “promised to ‘find out a way for [Mr. Ramacciotti] to get payment’ if Mr. Ramacciotti would provide access to Mr. Lipnik’s Development iPhone so Mr. Prosser could steal and profit from Apple’s confidential information.
Since then, Ramacciotti and Prosser have taken wildly different approaches to respond to the lawsuit.
Ramacciotti requested two extensions to respond to Apple’s complaint, which were granted by the court. Prosser, on the other hand, missed the deadline to send his answer, which prompted the court to enter default against him at Apple’s request.
In a statement to The Verge following the entry of default, Prosser claimed that “regardless of what the court documents say,” he has “been in active communications with Apple since the beginning stages of this case.”
Ramacciotti responds
Following the two court extensions, Ramacciotti responded to Apple’s accusations, rejecting or denying most of the company’s claims.
He does admit, however, to accessing Lipnik’s phone, “but denies that he planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme with Prosser to do so.”
The document also reveals that Prosser paid Ramacciotti $650 after the FaceTime call to show the new version of iOS, stressing that there had been no prior promise or agreement to pay for the information:
“Defendant admits that he accessed Lipnik’s Apple Development iPhone and conducted a FaceTime call with Prosser and Prosser asked Defendant to show certain iOS features. but denies that he planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme with Prosser to do so. Prosser offered Defendant payment of $650 at some point after the FaceTime call. Defendant did not initiate communications with Prosser based on any promise by Prosser that he would specifically pay Defendant for Apple information. As to the remainder of the paragraph, Defendant lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this paragraph, and on that basis, denies the allegations.”
In the document, Ramacciotti’s defense also says that he “did not know that Prosser was taking a video of their FaceTime call,” and that “he did not fully appreciate the sensitivity,” given that Lipnik had allegedly previously “swipe[d] through the new iOS features on the Development iPhone with Defendant”.
Interestingly, the document also makes a point to refer to Prosser as “defaulted defendant Jon Prosser” multiple times, in an apparent attempt to distance Ramacciotti from Prosser, despite the two being co-defendants in the same case.
You can read Ramacciotti’s full answer here.
What’s your take on Ramacciotti’s answer? Let us know in the comments.
Accessory deals on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
First Appeared on
Source link
