I don't mean to be nit-picky, but if you make a router store data so it can do its job, then it is by definition designed to store data. Even of that is not its main purpose.

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.