Frustrated, the computer scientist complains that he can only find one - namely the booth attendant's iPad showcasing Cuisnart's new product line.
The EE points to the HTCPCP-enabled coffee machine and says "No, there are at least two computers in there, the microwave in the corner has one, and if you want one in the toaster, here's my card."
Something as simple as the configuration files for the router (or a web front end to edit said config) would make it qualify.
The law is indeed not a computer program, but it does in general seek to be extremely explicit about everything it defines. It has to be. And in this case as well, it is very explicit about what defines a 'computer'. The way I see it, the judge did not really understand what a router really is (or can be). And consequently made an incorrect ruling that is likely to influence future rulings in similar cases.
This is one case where I am happy that one ruling does not require other judges to abide by the same ideas. One can only hope that other judges are more informed if and when the situation arises.
If courts don't make this distinction, then the definition of computer becomes meaningless because everything becomes a computer.
Also, law is not explicit about what constitutes a 'computer'. All it says is:
"Onder geautomatiseerd werk wordt verstaan een inrichting die bestemd is
om langs elektronische weg gegevens op te slaan, te verwerken en over te dragen."
"with automated work, we mean an apparatus intended to e used to store, process,
and transport data using electronics means."
I suspect law will evolve nuances over time. For example, would an external hard disk with built-in encryption be an automated work? A SAN with built-in encryption? A home server? My guesses would be no (no real processing of information), no, and yes.