Generated by Logical Toolkit for XBRL version f512f32 (updated 14 hours ago). Analysis at 2021-06-12T15:41:31+0000 for charles.hoffman@me.com. This page will remain online at https://pacioli.logicalcontracts.com/reportAnalysis/fb48e93daa9dbb638fa73b35727499980ab8a256.report/index.html for about 28 days.
| Block Pivots (one per detected block) | |
|---|---|
| Network |
100240 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES
(http://www.xbrlsite.com/msft/role/DisclosureCONTINGENCIES)
|
| Table | (implied) |
Concept arrangement pattern: 1.1.2.1.textBlock []
Entity: 0000789019 (http://www.sec.gov/CIK)
Unit: null
| Component as one Pivot (ALL presented facts) | |
|---|---|
| Network |
100240 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES
(http://www.xbrlsite.com/msft/role/DisclosureCONTINGENCIES)
|
| Table | (implied) |
Entity: 0000789019 (http://www.sec.gov/CIK)
Unit: null
The colours used for the fact values are significant, and have the following meanings:
| Fact Table | |
|---|---|
| Network |
100240 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES
(http://www.xbrlsite.com/msft/role/DisclosureCONTINGENCIES)
|
| Table | (implied) |
| # | Block | Reporting Entity [Aspect] | Period [Aspect] | Concept | Fact Value | Unit | Rounding | Parenthetical Explanations | Origin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.1.2.1.textBlock | 0000789019 (http://www.sec.gov/CIK) | 2016-07-01 to 2017-06-30 | CONTINGENCIES | <div> <p style="text-align:center;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;"><font style="text-decoration:underline;">NOTE 17 — CONTINGENCIES </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Patent and Intellectual Property Claims </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">IPCom patent litigation </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">IPCom GmbH & Co. (“IPCom”) is a German company that holds a large portfolio of mobile technology-related patents spanning about 170 patent families and addressing a broad range of cellular technologies. IPCom has asserted 19 of these patents in litigation against Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) and many of the leading cell phone companies and operators. In November 2014, Microsoft and IPCom entered into a standstill agreement staying all of the pending litigation against Microsoft to permit the parties to pursue settlement discussions, which continue. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">InterDigital patent litigation </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">InterDigital Technology Corporation and InterDigital Communications Corporation (collectively, “IDT”) filed four patent infringement cases against Nokia in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware between 2007 and 2013. We were added to these cases as a defendant after we acquired the Nokia phone business. Each of the ITC matters was resolved in our favor. In September 2015, in an <font style="font-style:italic;">inter partes</font> review the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final written decision that deemed unpatentable all asserted claims of the patent remaining at issue in the Delaware case. IDT’s appeal of this decision was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 7, 2017 and the Delaware case was stayed pending final completion of the <font style="font-style:italic;">inter partes</font> review (including appeals and any subsequent proceedings in the Patent Office). We filed an antitrust complaint against IDT in the District of Delaware in August 2015 asserting violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging unlawful exploitation of standard essential patents. Microsoft and IDT settled these cases in May 2017 and they have been dismissed. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">European copyright levies </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">We assumed from Nokia all potential liability due to Nokia’s alleged failure to pay “private copyright levies” in various European countries based upon sale of memory cards and mobile phones that incorporate blank memory. The levies are based upon a 2001 European Union (“EU”) Directive establishing a right for end users to make copies of copyrighted works for personal or private use, but also allowing the collection of levies based upon sales of blank media or recording devices to compensate copyright holders for private copying. Various collecting societies in EU countries initiated litigation against Nokia, stating it must pay levies not only based upon sales of blank memory cards, but also phones that include blank memory for data storage on the phones, regardless of actual usage of that memory. The most significant cases against Nokia were pending in Germany and Austria, due to both the high volume of sales and high levy amounts sought in these countries. We reached a settlement of the Austrian case in August 2016. In Germany, the only period for which settlement has not been reached is 2004 through 2007. In July 2016, the German Supreme Court heard our appeal contesting the legality of the levy assessed on phones with music players and over five megabytes of memory. The Supreme Court issued a ruling in December 2016, finding that the levy may not be appropriate for phones that have the ability to receive music files only via Bluetooth or infrared inputs, and remanded for further proceedings. A new case schedule has not been set, and we have reached a tentative settlement. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Other patent and intellectual property claims </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">In addition to the IPCom cases, there were 41 other patent infringement cases pending against Microsoft as of June 30, 2017. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Antitrust, Unfair Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016. The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their claims. A six-month oral hearing is scheduled to commence in September 2017, consisting of cross examination on witness affidavits. The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Other Antitrust Litigation and Claims </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">China State Administration for Industry and Commerce investigatio<font style="font-style:normal;">n </font></p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">In 2014, Microsoft was informed that China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) had begun a formal investigation relating to China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, and the SAIC conducted onsite inspections of Microsoft offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. SAIC has stated the investigation relates to compatibility, bundle sales, file verification issues related to Windows and Office software, and potentially other issues. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Product-Related Litigation </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">U.S. cell phone litigation </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. We assumed responsibility for these claims as part of our acquisition of Nokia’s Devices and Services business and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines (“FCC Guidelines”) are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs’ expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the trial court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence, which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals heard <font style="font-style:italic;">en banc</font>. In October 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision adopting the standard advocated by defendants and remanding the cases to the trial court for further proceedings under that standard. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reopen discovery and file additional expert evidence. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-style:italic;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Canadian cell phone class action </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than two years. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Other Contingencies </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">We also are subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">As of June 30, 2017, we accrued aggregate legal liabilities of $352 million. While we intend to defend these matters vigorously, adverse outcomes that we estimate could reach approximately $1.0 billion in aggregate beyond recorded amounts are reasonably possible. Were unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements for the period in which the effects become reasonably estimable. </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:13pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-weight:bold;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">Indemnifications </p> <p style="margin-bottom:0pt;margin-top:9pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:0%;font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-transform:none;font-variant: normal;">We provide indemnifications of varying scope and size to certain customers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of our products and certain other matters.<font style="font-size:12pt;"> </font>Additionally, we have agreed to cover damages resulting from breaches of certain security and privacy commitments in our cloud business. We evaluate estimated losses for these indemnifications, and we consider such factors as the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome and the ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss. To date, we have not encountered significant costs as a result of these obligations and have not accrued any liabilities related to these indemnifications on our consolidated financial statements. </p></div> | Reported |
| Model Structure | |
|---|---|
| Network |
100240 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES
(http://www.xbrlsite.com/msft/role/DisclosureCONTINGENCIES)
|
| Table | (implied) |
| # | Label | Report Element Class | Period Type | Balance | Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | Abstract | duration | base:CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract | |
| 2 | Statement [Table] | Hypercube | duration | base:StatementTable | |
| 3 | Legal Entity [Axis] | Dimension | duration | other:LegalEntityAxis | |
| 4 | Entity [Domain] | Member | duration | other:EntityDomain | |
| 5 | Statement [Line Items] | LineItems | duration | base:StatementLineItems | |
| 6 | CONTINGENCIES | Concept (TextBlock) | duration | base:LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock |
| Definition Links Graph | |
|---|---|
| Network |
100240 - Disclosure - CONTINGENCIES
(http://www.xbrlsite.com/msft/role/DisclosureCONTINGENCIES)
|
| Table | (implied) |
For more information: http://logicalcontracts.com/xbrl-and-sbrm-reporting/
DISCLAIMER: this analysis is provided by software still under development, and likely incomplete or even erroneous; do NOT use it other than for experimental, inconsequential purposes