You should sell your right to litigate this. There are hundreds of firms that would pay you to take this on. Would involve near zero effort for you and would also check the box of being “about the principle”.

I doubt it for three very big reasons and you're wrong about one big point:

1. Time barring is pretty iron clad. Sucks for the author but consider the alternative where anyone could sue anyone after any period of time.

2. If a court did find in favor of the plaintiff, the court would be more likely to award the 90s cash value of the stock, plus interest, rather than awarding the shares or current market value (damages being how we was actually wronged in the 90s rather than speculating what he might have done with the stock to present)

3. Given 1 and 2, Nvidia is unlikely to make a big settlement, meaning an expensive and risky trial.

Which brings us to hidden reason #4: nobody would pay that much for the rights so it probably isn't worth the author's time. He'd still be the man at the center of the suit: depositions, testimony, cross examination, records subpoenas...

> After much soul-searching, deliberation, and gnashing of teeth, my attorneys and I concluded that the statute of limitations was against us. Because of the thirty-odd years that had passed while I “sat on my rights,” it seemed unlikely we’d make it past a motion to dismiss.

That was my first thought as well.

Or, find one of the many interest groups who have a non-economic reason to hate NVIDIA.

What OP has here is a license to go on a fishing expedition through NVIDIA.

Would they? Surely they'd realize that they too have no chance of winning because of the same issue.

There’s already a relatively liquid market here around legal financing, but they only finance cases that can win. This is not a case that will result in anything but a dismissal.

Why would anyone buy that right? Statute of limitations is crystal clear here. The case is going to be dismissed the moment it gets in front of a judge.

Absolutely this.