I see law the same way I see a computer program, and court as a computer. The current legal code is never wrong in what it does. It simply executes and termina

I see law the same way I see a computer program, and court as a computer. The current legal code is never wrong in what it does. It simply executes and terminates. The courts define interpretation and execution semantics for it. If you do not like the result, you've just failed at implementing the correct legal code. It's futile to blame laws and court rulings. Caveat to some extent obviously, since laws and courts have informal specs, it does mean that two different court (in my analogy computers) could end up on slightly different results. But most importantly we should focus on changing the legal code itself if we don't like the results. If anything, the bigger issue with laws and courts is the cost of execution. Just to know what outcome the current legal code results in given a concrete situation takes years, lots of money, tons of appeal, etc. If we could make that much cheaper and quick, it would greatly improve things. Think development feedback cycles. Imagine it took you years to test your code on a few scenarios? That's what happens with legislation today. So back to the article. It's not up to the courts to decide the desired behavior. It is only up to them to define the result of the currently described behavior. And it might seem in this case, the describe behavior maybe has a bug with regards to the desired behavior of some of the users...