I don't mean relative based on the task cause that is obvious. I mean relative based on financial situation. Take two hypothetical companies, one with huge amounts of cash reserves, and another that is just a startup with no cash reserves. The government takes both to court over the same situation as Apple. The same task ends up requiring the same large sum of money and 1 months time from each company. Obviously this could really hurt the startup and while it'll hurt the larger company, it won't be as big of a burden.
Does the "unreasonable burden" mean something different in this case? Who makes the call as to when this crosses the line? Something just doesn't feel logically right to me if this line moves at the whim of the current decider (judge? jury? someone else?) despite being an identical request with identical financial impact (just relatively different). There has to be some sort of guideline definition for "unreasonable" somewhere, right?
Does the "unreasonable burden" mean something different in this case? Who makes the call as to when this crosses the line? Something just doesn't feel logically right to me if this line moves at the whim of the current decider (judge? jury? someone else?) despite being an identical request with identical financial impact (just relatively different). There has to be some sort of guideline definition for "unreasonable" somewhere, right?