1) If there was not any statute of limitations, your neighbor from 50 years ago can sue because you never returned his hammer as he claims. Good luck trying to find witnesses and documents from that long ago. 2) The time limit is from when the wrong-doing is found out, not when it happens.

I can only guess that both sides disagreed about when Musk learned that OpenAI was converting and that fact had to be decided by the jury.

Normally a statute of limitations question would have been addressed earlier in the case. I can only guess a main point of contention is when did Musk know that OpenAI was going to convert to for-profit. If the defense had to establish at trial Musk knew in 2019, then that would be why the trial was needed. If Musk can claim he found out in 2021, then he was within the statiute.

The core issue for civil cases is whether or not the plaintiff was damaged. Filing a lawsuit years after the limitations ran out would undercut any argument Musk had that he was damaged. He was aware of the conversion to for-profit. He had the money to sue. He wasn't damaged enough to sue before the limitations ran out would be a conclusion by the court.

Based on what I have seen in this case, I don't know which side to believe as both sides are untrustworthy.

The principle is if there were not any limitations, people could sue for things that happened long in the past and bog down the courts. The limitations by the way is governed when something can be known not when it happens. In this case, however, Musk knew OpenAI was turning for-profit as it was public knowledge back in 2019. He waited until 2024. If Musk was so damaged by the change he could have sued earlier. It's not like he didn't have the money to sue.

And no one said they were hallucinations. That's a strawman argument. What he's saying is these bugs are duplicative, misclassified, and already known.

Why don't you fix his processes since you seem to have all the answers.

Obviously the current AI is not doing that. The current models are only looking at the code. The models are not looking at the mailing lists to cross-reference the bugs with existing, identified ones. That would be a different model.

Such outdated thinking. Don't you know that if you build the datacenter first, magically utilities will appear? Wizards will relocate to that location and start conjuring water. Romulans will lend the community an artificial singularity to power the datacenter. Just wait for step 4. Profit.

1) I believe he was a repeat offender. 2) It was a plea deal requiring the defendant to accept the punishment as the defendant could have had his day in court.

And how is reworking gravity not a different contrivance? It is merely a contrivance you would feel more comfortable with even though no evidence exists that gravity works differently. The speed of light could also be variable in one direction is another contrivance that could fabricated to explain that dark energy does not exist. Or do physicists merely stick with that an unknown energy that cannot yet be explained but is supported by current observations?

Your first response to any criticism of Windows was to criticize Linux. That reaction is indicative of your other responses. When pointing that out, your next response is gas lighting about my reading comprehension. Perhaps the issue is you.

By your own logic, people have been owning Windows machines for decades; however, your bias will never acknowledge that.

There is unknown energy and matter that has been observed over decades by many, many scientists in many different ways. How were those observations contrived? They called it "dark" because it is not luminous. They could have called it magical pixie energy and matter. What would have assuaged your objections?