> if the lawmakers had meant the law to cover both 'traditional' computers and smartphones, they would have written "computers and smartphones" That seems a fa

> if the lawmakers had meant the law to cover both 'traditional' computers and smartphones, they would have written "computers and smartphones" That seems a fairly weak argument. Why can't they write a law that applies to all computers by default? including future form factors like wearables and glasses and anything not invented yet. This logic implies that the law has to be amended every time we find a new computer shape.