欠下十亿美元的英伟达股票
Owed a billion dollars in Nvidia stock

原始链接: https://colo.to/nvidia-stock-narrative.html

1993年英伟达的早期顾问埃里克·古利克森(Eric Gullichsen)最近发现,由于文书错误,他的股票期权被大幅少发了。在协助创始人开发早期硬件的双二次纹理映射技术后,古利克森获批了2.5万份期权。尽管合同规定了为期一年的归属期,但英伟达的法律顾问在1996年错误地将其设定为四年,导致古利克森误以为只有1.5625万股已经归属。 几十年后,在计入多次股票拆分后,古利克森意识到他原本应多得450万股股票,现价值约十亿美元。尽管他聘请了知名律师团队对这一差异提出异议,但最终还是放弃了索赔。虽然英伟达并未否认合同的真实性,但他的律师团队认为,三十年的时间跨度已使其索赔超过了诉讼时效。古利克森分享了他的故事,将其作为关于合同义务过期和资产监管重要性的警示案例,并最终以豁达的态度接受了这一损失。

相关文章

原文

Eric Gullichsen, September 2026

I was an early advisor to NVIDIA in 1993, and recently discovered I’m owed about a billion dollars in stock.

Early Days

It is not widely known, but I was invited to join the Technical Advisory Board of NVIDIA in 1993 by Jensen (at that time, sans leather jacket)1. In September 1993, I was granted 25,000 options, “in a series of quarterly installments so that all shares shall vest upon the expiration of one year from Grant Date.”2

This invitation followed a meeting I had with Jensen, Curtis Priem, and Chris Malachowsky on my houseboat, the SS Vallejo, in Sausalito. I’d done a fair bit of work with Curtis circa 1990, when he was at Sun Microsystems, architect of the SPARCstation GX chip. Sun was one of the companies supporting my early virtual reality company, Sense8 Corporation. The Sun GX was blazingly fast at blitting polygons - some 50k/second - and we’d ported Sense8’s VR rendering to it. Subsequently, I implemented bilinear texture mapping using the Intel i750 DVI chip.

But what caught Curtis’s attention in 1993, and caused him to bring the other NVIDIA founders to visit me for a demo, was my fast implementation of biquadratic texture mapping. Details are in US5796426A and subsequent patents.

Curtis understood the potential of non-linear texture mapping to differentiate NVIDIA’s first product, the NV1, from the competition.

I worked for while, quite casually, with Curtis on porting my biquadratic texture mapping to their hardware, and wrote the code for an Intel-sponsored VR string-quartet demo on prototype NVIDIA hardware - actually a GX card in a PCI adapter - shown at the Guggenheim SoHo in 1993.

When the NV1 finally shipped in 1995, Microsoft decided, for reasons of their own, not to support quadratic texture mapping, or even quads, in their just-released DirectX toolkit - triangles only. This had a devastating effect on NVIDIA’s finances and prospects, and the company laid off a large percentage of its staff.

Then, in April 1996 - by which time I’d expatriated to the Kingdom of Tonga and was working on various internet startup schemes - NVIDIA’s CFO wrote me a letter stating that 15,625 shares of my stock options had vested, and that I was required to exercise them.3 I did, and then forgot all about it.

30 Years Later

Fast-forward to 2024. I’m sitting with a day-trader friend, surrounded by screens all blaring news about NVIDIA, the Most Important Company on Earth. So I went home and dug through my folder of old documents.

Imagine my surprise: according to the duly signed option agreement, my options were meant to vest over four quarters, not four years, as both NVIDIA’s CFO and their outside counsel, Cooley, had asserted back in 1996. The math is clear: 15,625 of 25,000 shares is 62.5%, exactly what you’d expect after ten quarters of a four-year vesting schedule. On the one-year schedule the agreement actually specified, all 25,000 shares should have vested well before that letter was even written.

With the stock’s many splits - a cumulative 480x to date - my missing 9,375 shares are now 4,500,000 shares. A handsome enough pile that I engaged formidable attorneys Allan Steyer of Steyer Lowenthal, and Chris Burke of Korein Tillery, to explore the issue. Consummate advocates, letterheads with substantial gravitas.

After about a year of my attorneys and NVIDIA’s in-house and outside counsel sending letters back and forth citing case law and blustering, I mentioned to my attorneys that, as I was growing elderly and there seemed to be no end to this exchange of letters, perhaps they could meet and settle. NVIDIA did not dispute the authenticity of the option agreement, only that my claims were long since time-barred.

The meeting was held with great professionalism, but Cooley’s answer was, in essence, “so sue us.” 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.

Lessons?

I offer this in the spirit of a cautionary tale. I’m sure there are lessons here for those with a more phlegmatic personality than mine. Here in the land of the free, it turns out a company only has to honor its contractual obligations for a little while.

Has anyone else discovered a similar vesting surprise, decades later? And how was it resolved?

I remain sanguine, and amused. As the Emperor Septimius Severus quipped: “Omnia fui, nihil expedit.”

Eric Gullichsen, September 2026

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com