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...

▲

greyface- 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

> but consider the alternative where anyone could sue anyone after any period of time

What's the problem with this alternative, exactly? Some crimes already have no statute of limitations, and this hasn't caused the sky to fall.

▲

ehe78qhe 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It would create a burden on businesses to keep all records indefinitely (most businesses only keep around 7 years of most records). This has a monetary cost to it that would disadvantage mature businesses against younger ones.

▲

8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

gravypod 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

In an era of digital records keeping, this does not sound impossible.

	▲	ehe78qhe 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Even in the era of digital records it has a monetary cost; keeping decades of emails, documents, audio and video recordings is not free. I have friends working for software businesses that make many millions per customer just managing and retaining documents.

▲

ozozozd 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I never understand this idea that “if you avoid getting caught long enough, you deserve to enjoy the spoils of your crime.”

	▲	echoangle 2 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		At least in Germany, you can restart the expiration by trying to enforce the claim. So you can’t just wait and avoid getting caught, the other side basically has to forget about you.
	▲	ehe78qhe 8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		1. The state generally has more resources to retain evidence than citizens; if the state is allowed to prosecute crimes far in the past, they can target defendants who cannot provide evidence in their defense due to lost records. This asymmetry can be unjust, especially for crimes of lesser impact. 2. Most people draw a line where it seems needlessly cruel to prosecute an old crime; an extreme example, should a middle-aged person with decades of good behavior live in fear of being prosecuted for a relatively small crime committed as a teenager? Conversely, if a person commits a crime as a teenager, shouldn't they have clemency if they stop committing crimes for a long time and become a good citizen? Most people prefer the outcome that people can put smaller mistakes behind them; they may debate where to draw the lines, of course.