| ▲ | Arodex 3 hours ago |
| >Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations. Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation". |
|
| ▲ | granzymes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The statute of limitations exists to prevent unreasonable delay, to protect defendants from prejudice due to loss of evidence to the passage of time, and to recognize that people who are injured tend to complain immediately and not sit on their claims. This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI. |
| |
| ▲ | Arodex 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know why statutes of limitation exist. I was wondering why it applied here. Apparently it wasn't completely straightforward, as nine jurors were needed to reach a decision on that point, instead of a single judge or even clerk. | | |
| ▲ | granzymes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether the claim accrued before the statute of limitations expired is a question of fact, and is therefore reserved for the fact-finder which in this case was the jury. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IMHO, whether (and which) statue of limitations applies is a question of law, whether said time limit has passed is a question of fact. I'd like to read the jury instructions and verdict, but I didn't see a link to them anywhere. I guess there could be a question of fact in a case where the statues of limitation differ for different injuries, and the factual question is which injury was it. | | |
| ▲ | granzymes 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants. The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week. I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | peterfirefly 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It seems to me like justice should be about right vs wrong and illegal vs legal, and not “did you fill out form 27B/6 on time?” Dismissing a case on these kinds of trivial procedural grounds seems like the court just doesn’t want to do its job. | | |
| ▲ | granzymes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims. | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | there are also practical concerns at play with a statute of limitations, where evidence is more likely to disappear and the trial would've devolved into a he said/she said situation. |
| |
| ▲ | dbt00 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it was wrong in 2019, why did he wait 7 years to do something about it? The passage of time makes it harder to have a fair trial, as shown by the number of times Elon said I don't know or I don't recall about conversations that would have been recent in 2019 but are now long (or strategically) forgotten. | | | |
| ▲ | mrhottakes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bringing claims promptly so they can be adjudicated is vital for justice. What would you think if you were sued for something that happened decades ago when the time to correct it was soon after the instigating event? | |
| ▲ | brookst 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So you’d be OK if, say, a rental car sued you for putative damage to a car you rented 15 years ago? Limiting time that an action can be brought is critical to having a fair trial. | |
| ▲ | danso 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How do you imagine justice functioning in a system that lacks a statute of limitations? | |
| ▲ | geodel 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn't seem trivial at all. Allowing to flout procedure specially in case of very rich , powerful people with vast resources at their disposal would feel rewarding further for their cluelessness as if they are not already heavily rewarded by rigged system. | |
| ▲ | albedoa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I for one am happy that we have and enforce statutes of limitations. Calling it a kind of "trivial procedural grounds" is wild. > the court just doesn’t want to do its job. What do you think its job is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mrhottakes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the US, court clerks do not decide cases. This was a jury trial, so the jury was required to do its job. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | joshkel 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/05/16/musk-v-altman-week-3... has a good explanation of the legalities: "If the jury determines that at any time before those dates, Musk either knew — or had or should have known — that he had a claim that he could bring, then his suit was brought too late. The consequence of being too late is swift and absolute. If the lawsuit was filed late for a particular claim, that claim is out of the case; if it was too late for all of Musk’s claims, the lawsuit is over." That's where the question of fact (i.e., the requirement for a jury decision) came in: "What was the statute of limitations?" is a question of law, but "When should Musk have known that OpenAI was moving too much toward for-profit?" is a question of fact (and, here, determines whether the statute of limitations applies). |
|
| ▲ | chipsrafferty 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are multiple reasons why statutes of limitations exist, one of them being that the further away in time, the harder it is to prove evidence. Witnesses may have died, or their memory may be more faulty. |
| |
| ▲ | hnfong 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also criminal liability is generally handled differently. Some jurisdictions have no limit, and where the limits exist for criminal liability, limitations on serious crimes can be much longer than the civil ones. |
|
|
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because there has to be some point. It's unjust to allow someone to sue 30 years later, as everyone would have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head waiting for the right moment to strike. And in general, if you didn't realize you were robbed for 3 years, perhaps it's the case that you weren't actually robbed. |
| |
| ▲ | skeptic_ai 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So if I exchange your Rolex with a fake one and then you try to sell after 3 years and you notice it’s fake, it’s fine for you? | | |
| ▲ | granzymes 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The statute of limitations takes into account when the plaintiff discovered or with reasonable diligence should have discovered their injury. In this case, the jury found that Musk knew or should have known of his alleged injury prior to 2021. | |
| ▲ | eftychis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is the notion of equitable estoppel, that would *perhaps*, depending on the facts, apply which stops a defendant, who for instance concealed or committed certain acts of fraud, from raising the statute of limitations defense. Edit: to augment the sibling comment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hn_acc1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not a robbery, though. Not in the "break in and steal stuff from your house multiple times" situation. Legally, each of those are separate events, and one doesn't really affect the other unless it's all the same person, and the repetition is used to get a stronger case, etc. |
|
| ▲ | jmyeet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There are several legal principles in play here. Note that these are civil trial issues and when you're talking about "robbing", you're likely talking about a criminal issue. These are: 1. Estoppel. If a party relies on your conduct then you can lose the right to sue over it; 2. Laches. This is a defense against prejudicial conduct, typically by waiting too long to take action; 3. Waiver. Your conduct can waive your right to sue. Imagine you live with someone and they don't pay half of the rent so you cover it. At some point your continued conduct means you lose the right to sue; and 4. The statute of limitations. Some claims simply have to be brought within a certain period. How this applies can be really complex. For example, we saw this in Trump's fraud convictions in New York. His time in office, away from the jurisdiction, essentially suspended the statute of limitations. Some crimes like murder have no statute of limitations. Others have unreasonably short statutes of limitations. For example, probably nobody can be charged in relation to sex trafficking in the Epstein saga because the statute of limitations is often 5 years with such crimes. This is unreasonable (IMHO) because often the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint. It's also worth adding that not all legal systems have such wide-ranging statutes of limitation as the US does. Founding principles of those other legal systems is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted for prosecuting criminal conduct. The US system ostensibly favors "timely" prosecution. |
