That's nothing. Actually, Bill Gates is a man who also made copyright from money! Really. Several nations were made to change their copyrights in the 80ies, on account of the US software producers lobbying.
So for instance here in Switzerland, we've got the "software exemptions" in copyright. It goes like this: (rights on loans) 13.4 this does not apply to computer programs. (private copies) 19.4 this does not apply to computer programs. And so on. Of course. it's the rights of the people which software is exempt of.
Effectively, the USA is ruled over by terrorists, because the government will promptly oppress its own citizens and make new totalitarian laws every time terrorists launch an attack, or even just utter a threat.
In contrast, what does it take for citizens to change the law?
As it happens, there's a reason law enforcement cannot use any tool as they see fit, at least within nations that uphold the rule of law.
And apparently, what the FBI used there violates the rule of law, which is why the judge threw out the idiots for trying.
But it's easy to guess what the FBI did: They infected the accused's computer with malware which also allowed the planting of (fabricated) evidence; like Hacking Team's "Galileo".
As a hint for future cases: If it's technology meant for espionage or warfare, it's probably not usable for law enforcement. If the evidence it creates is not tamper-resistant but actually opens more options for tampering, it's not usable for law enforcement. If you don't want to talk about, it's NEVER useable for law enforcement. If it comes with an NDA, it's NEVER usable by law enforcement.
It's not a double edged sword because of encryption, but because everything you do to foster surveillance will cut you, and everyone else, by jeopardizing security. Encryption is actually the scabbard.
Do you really want to be responsible for terrorists taking down the electrical grid, using a backdoor you inserted, or a vulnerability you kept secret, because you wanted your surveillance capabilities?