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.
	▲	rprend 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Statute of limitations kicks in at the moment of your awareness of the watch being fake. But, you and the plaintiff might dispute over the fact of when you learned the watch was fake. That’s exactly what this jury decision was about. Musk claimed he wasn’t aware of OpenAI’s for profit push until 2022. Altman claimed he was aware of it as far back as 2017 or 2019. The Jury looked at texts and emails and interviewed witnesses and decided that Musk was aware of it in 2019, which is more than 3 years before he filed the suit in 2024.
	▲	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.