Hacker News Reader

Comment by bragr | Hacker News Reader

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 he 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...

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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

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.

It's not just about storage. It's about fairness and creating an environment where people can transact in a relatively stable and predictable manner.

It is inherently unfair and destabilizing if people can sit on alleged wrongs, violations of agreements, etc. indefinitely, either intentionally or because they were ignorant or negligent, and then raise those wrongs in the court system any time they choose to.

A statute of limitations basically says "take your rights and obligations seriously and when you have a dispute over them with another party, raise it in a reasonable amount of time or forever hold your peace".

It's not just a burden for the immediate parties. Having the ability to dispute rights and obligation going back indeterminate amounts of time adds risk to the rights and obligations of untold numbers of third-parties; everybody's interests become more interdependent and intertwined the more time has elapsed. One of the important functions of a legal system is to settle rights and obligations. Settled, transparent rights and obligations are also integral to notions of fairness and justice, so it's not a zero sum thing that statutes of limitations sacrifice fairness for cold transactional efficiency.

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

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.

There is also the practical matter that after 30 years it is very difficult to prove anything. Witnesses are gone, documents are missing etc. Satute of limitations is more about practicality than anything else.

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.

A few reasons:

- If you wait too long to pursue a case, then the reliability of evidence goes down, as people lose older records, memories fail, physical infrastructure is replaced, etc.

- Statutes of limitations diminish the ability of malicious accusers to pursue cases against their targets.

- Statutes of limitations also create a sense of finality to a situation; it prevents people from coming out of the woodwork to unsettle something settled 20 years ago.

- In general, the clock runs from when you first find out about an injury to when you can first take action do something about it. That action isn't necessarily to actually file a lawsuit; there are often many things you can do to pause or reset the clock before filing the lawsuit.

- They also incentivize people to pursue redress sooner rather than later, with the concomitant benefits of doing so.

- If it takes you, say, five years to figure out that you are really mad about being injured by somebody... why were you fine with it for five years? It really undercuts your argument about the seriousness of the injury to delay for so long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com