Apple sues YouTuber who leaked iOS 26’s new “Liquid Glass” software redesign

YouTuber claims to “have receipts” disproving Apple’s allegations.

See full article...

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Is it a trade secret if Apple planned to reveal it a couple months later?

Logically, yes.

 

[lukipedia]

Is it a trade secret if Apple planned to reveal it a couple months later?

They’re implying there were other things on the device that weren’t that close to announcement. But in any case, yes.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

I reflexively believe anything negative claimed about YouTubers and influencers and I reflexively believe anything bad about large corporations so I'm torn on this.

If I pick sides without knowing the truth, just based on which provides more value to the world, I guess I'm team Apple on this one.

 

[snoopy.369]

Not a lawyer, but I suspect they have to name Prosser as a defendant so that they can do discovery to find out whether he was indeed involved in the conspiracy or if it was all the source, even if they don't know.

 

[poke 532810]

I just hope there’s a way to turn off the translucent effect. It isn’t kind on these aging eyes.

 

[TheHokieCoder]

I personally find the world’s hunger for leaks to be off-putting…patience is a virtue. So if those involved were legally in violation of contracts or laws, nail them to the wall. Send a message that kind of action will not be tolerated nor condoned.

At the same time, it will be interesting to hear what evidence the defendants have to show their actions were justified.

 

[msadesign]

That letter from Apple I’d dread for sure.

 

[you goddamn idiot.]

I just hope there’s a way to turn off the translucent effect. It isn’t kind on these aging eyes.

There already is, in the Accessibility settings of iOS.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

If there is a chilling effect down the line on any Apple features then what will happen is apple will slowly diminish over time and people will just moved on to other products

And this is where Apple needs to be careful so it’s not David vs Goliath in public perception

Yes, but industrial espionage should have consequences.

It's like that dumbass a few years ago who KNEW the person who gave him a prototype iPhone 4 (?) didn't have the legal right to do that.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

That letter from Apple I’d dread for sure.

Disney and Apple are the two scariest legal teams on the planet (to me as an individual, not from a business perspective. Oracle and Qualcomm might be crazy assholes but that's my company's problem, not mine). They might not always prevail, but they probably will and you have to financially survive long enough to have a chance of beating them and that's not easy.

 

[chaos215bar2]

I reflexively believe anything negative claimed about YouTubers and influencers…

I wouldn't. There are some who clearly have no qualms being a shill for whoever will pay or who resort to blatantly illegal if not immoral tactics to gain views. (In this case, why not both?)

But there are also some who genuinely care and try to be thoughtful about how they present topics and even debate whether they'll take direct sponsorship at all, often leaning pretty heavily towards "no" in this case.

 

[AdamM]

If there is a chilling effect down the line on any Apple features then what will happen is apple will slowly diminish over time and people will just moved on to other products

And this is where Apple needs to be careful so it’s not David vs Goliath in public perception

The average person doesn't care about leaks and will almost certainly not care about this lawsuit.

They're not moving on to other products over leaks slowing down, if that even occurs. Big organizations are often a sieve.

 

[markgo]

I personally find the world’s hunger for leaks to be off-putting…patience is a virtue. So if those involved were legally in violation of contracts or laws, nail them to the wall. Send a message that kind of action will not be tolerated nor condoned.

At the same time, it will be interesting to hear what evidence the defendants have to show their actions were justified.

Umm, they tracked the Apple employe, got his phone password and used his phone without his knowledge or permission. I’d say a few laws were broken even without trade secrets.

They also got him fired, though there’s no law against that.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

I wouldn't. There are some who clearly have no qualms being a shill for whoever will pay or who resort to blatantly illegal if not immoral tactics to gain views. (In this case, why not both?)

But there are also some who genuinely care and try to be thoughtful about how they present topics and even debate whether they'll take direct sponsorship at all, often leaning pretty heavily towards "no" in this case.

I'm sure there are influencers and YouTubers who are decent and good people. But as a class, they are a pox.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Umm, they tracked him, got his phone password and used his phone without his knowledge or permission. I’d say a few laws were broken even without trade secrets.

Reasonable case for stalking, unauthorized system access and plenty of other criminal charges and hopefully they're pursued.

 

[calson33]

What makes the Liquid Glass leak worth suing over, according to Apple, was a “coordinated scheme” between Prosser and Ramacciotti to gain access to an Apple employee’s company-owned phone and disseminate Apple’s trade secrets on YouTube for ad money.

Almost every online news outlet that publishes leaks does so for ad money.
Not saying these guys were right or don't deserve consequences, just that it seems an odd justification.
Am I missing something here?

 

[you goddamn idiot.]

Yes, but industrial espionage should have consequences.

It's like that dumbass a few years ago who KNEW the person who gave him a prototype iPhone 4 (?) didn't have the legal right to do that.

"Gave"? As I recall, Gizmodo bought the prototype iPhone 4 obtained under extremely dubious circumstances (read: picked up from a bar counter after an Apple employee forgot it there) for $5000, and subsequently tried to extract favourable treatment from Apple in exchange for returning the prototype.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

"Gave"? As I recall, Gizmodo bought the prototype iPhone 4 obtained under extremely dubious circumstances (read: picked up from a bar counter after an Apple employee forgot it there) for $5000, and subsequently tried to extract favourable treatment from Apple in exchange for returning the prototype.

Oh yes, much worse than apparently remembered.

 

[EBone]

Umm, they tracked the Apple employe, got his phone password and used his phone without his knowledge or permission. I’d say a few laws were broken even without trade secrets.

They also got him fired, though there’s no law against that.

Lipnik was also responsible in part for his own firing. He didn't secure a device running prototype software per Apple policies. Had he done that, none of this could have happened.

 

[the_frakker]

If Prosser has been getting leaked info with this type of shady behavior, then he gets what he deserves if found guilty. If found innocent, then I hope this case doesn’t destroy his reputation.

There is this weird drive to get as many “5 minutes of fame” moments as possible by becoming the face of leaked information. The more reliable your leaks, the more minutes of fame you get. With today’s platforms, it also means financial rewards for your “work.”

As I’ve gotten older, I don’t care much about rumors and leaks. I can wait for the product announcement. Then I’ll be interested in what we missed out on or what changed during development after the fact.

Sometimes it seems companies leak their plans early to get a feel on the buzz around what they might do and then adjust based on that feedback. This clearly wasn’t one of those instances.

This instance has TMZ “journalistic” slime written all over it. Of course, this all has to be proven to be true. We’ll see. For now, it seems Prosser is going to have to chill out. Which might be bad news for his business since new iPhones are kind of close to being announced.

 

[graylshaped]

Not a lawyer, but I suspect they have to name Prosser as a defendant so that they can do discovery to find out whether he was indeed involved in the conspiracy or if it was all the source, even if they don't know.

"Hey, I don't know where this information came from," says a guy pretending to be a journalist yet apparently doesn't verify his sources.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Lipnik was also responsible in part for his own firing. He didn't secure a device running prototype software per Apple policies. Had he done that, none of this could have happened.

This reads as victim blaming to me. Maybe he broke Apple policy but someone also broke into his damned home.

I wonder if he was supposed to have it in a safe or something, policy-wise.

 

[NinjaNerd56]

Is it a trade secret if Apple planned to reveal it a couple months later?

Read the damn article…

 

[graylshaped]

Almost every online news outlet that publishes leaks does so for ad money.
Not saying these guys were right or don't deserve consequences, just that it seems an odd justification.
Am I missing something here?

That these were the acts of individuals, not news organizations? Youtube isn't the one being sued.

 

[Unsheept]

Disney and Apple are the two scariest legal teams on the planet. They might not always prevail, but they probably will and you have to financially survive long enough to have a chance of beating them and that's not easy.

Maybe to your average consumer they're the scariest (I'd personally add Nintendo to that list), but in absolute terms? Not even close.

Oracle is absolutely miserable to their customers - you're either expanding your use of their products or they're suing you for underlicensing the products you use. Microsoft and Netflix are huge in the patent infringement space. Not to mention the oil companies defending themselves . . .

 

[Oldmanalex]

All the people who’ve had the phone passcodes scammed at a bar and ripped off will be happy to know that it was all their fault.

His “friends” engaged in a cruel and illegal conspiracy. You’re victim blaming here.

One might have a not unreasonable suspicion that he is either as dumb as a post, or was colluding. In Pharma, this leak would definitely get one fired, unless it was during a C-suite dick-swinging contest.

 

[graylshaped]

he had no obligation to protect their trade secrets. They are using this lawsuit to get to the leaker via the fact-finding stage. They want to find the employee who leaked the info, this lawsuit is just a tool to get that information.

They know who the "leaker" was, who by all accounts was an unwitting access point, nothing more. He has already been fired for cause.

If you want to call his firing and public airing of the details the head on the spike warning other employees to better protect prototypes, I could give you that. I could even grant you this lawsuit is a shot across the bow of other would-be reporters tempted to act or entice others to act illegally to obtain legitimate trade secrets.


edit: extraneous. punctuation

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

Maybe to your average consumer they're the scariest (I'd personally add Nintendo to that list), but in absolute terms? Not even close.

Oracle is absolutely miserable to their customers - you're either expanding your use of their products or they're suing you for underlicensing the products you use. Microsoft and Netflix are huge in the patent infringement space. Not to mention the oil companies defending themselves . . .

Oh, I definitely mean to individuals.

 

[Boskone]

Almost every online news outlet that publishes leaks does so for ad money.
Not saying these guys were right or don't deserve consequences, just that it seems an odd justification.
Am I missing something here?

My assumption is that they need to establish a financial motive.

Regardless of whether it matters legally, but probably would to a lot of jurors.

 

[graylshaped]

Maybe to your average consumer they're the scariest (I'd personally add Nintendo to that list), but in absolute terms? Not even close.

Oracle is absolutely miserable to their customers - you're either expanding your use of their products or they're suing you for underlicensing the products you use. Microsoft and Netflix are huge in the patent infringement space. Not to mention the oil companies defending themselves . . .

My first wife was obliged to take on a well-known discount outlet chain as a client at one point who had a reputation for "accidentally" letting payments slip towards the end of its contracts with service providers, often with several months going completely unpaid, then just before the end of the contract (which, invariably the service provider had no interest in renewing because these people were intentionally jerks to everyone as a negotiating tactic), filing suit on some pretense with the offer of dismissing their suit "and calling it even." Knowing that was their modus operandi, she kept good receipts, and her company filed their countersuit the same day, with full payment being the "call it even" settlement offer. The company paid up, then for some strange reason was unable to find anyone to take on that particular regulatory-required service and wound up having to go to the state to be the provider of last resort.

Yeah, I know, I know, sounds a lot like Musk and Trump's business practice, but to your point, many, many companies do shit like this, and often those companies are run by serial offenders who abandon one debt-laden company and start up another.