> As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like

> As an engineer who has worked with a lot of lawyers, a great observation I once received from one was that the law is fungible and should not be treated like source code. Yes. This keeps lawyers employed, because rich people and companies can employ a "great lawyer" to present creative interpretations of various fungible laws; whereas poor people and companies cannot afford to do so, and have to fall upon the mercy of those enforcing the law, like in the cases you mentioned. This does not mean that we should just accept the state of affairs. Laws with clear-cut examples and precedents will reduce the inherent unfairness that I cited above. This is especially true in the US, where lots of groups with differing backgrounds form a melting pot culture where norms can change rapidly. Even if you are a member of a group that's a beneficiary of the status quo, that is not guaranteed forever; so it is to your benefit to have clarity in law.