iOS 26 泄密案被告内讧：否认合谋，650 美元付款成案件核心

Core Viewpoint - The iOS 26 leak case has taken a dramatic turn, suggesting that it may be more about the defendants shifting blame rather than a high-tech corporate espionage case [1] Group 1: Case Background - The case dates back to July when Apple sued Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti for allegedly conspiring to steal and leak confidential information about the unreleased iOS 26 "Liquid Glass" visual update [1] - Ramacciotti allegedly accessed an internal development iPhone through a friend who is an Apple employee and provided the obtained trade secrets to Prosser, who promised compensation [1] Group 2: Defendants' Responses - Prosser missed the deadline to respond to the court, resulting in a default judgment against him at Apple's request [2] - In contrast, Ramacciotti submitted a written response after two extensions, disputing Apple's allegations [2] Group 3: Key Dispute - A central point of contention is a payment of $650 (approximately 4,617 RMB), which Ramacciotti acknowledged receiving but denied any conspiracy [2] - Ramacciotti claimed there was no prior agreement to steal information or receive payment, stating that the $650 was offered by Prosser after the fact [2] Group 4: Legal Implications - If the court accepts Ramacciotti's argument that the payment occurred after the leak and was not prearranged, Apple's accusations of "collusion" could be significantly weakened [3] - The nature of the incident could shift from "intentional theft" to "negligent disclosure" without evidence of an agreement [3]