Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation and SEC Investigation From time to time, the Company is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company expects that the number and significance of these matters will increase as business expands. In particular, the Company faces an increasing number of patent and other intellectual property claims as the number of products and competitors in Polycom’s industry grows and the functionality of video, voice, data and web conferencing products overlap. Any claims or proceedings against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on terms favorable to the Company or at all. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a reserve for the loss. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates revised. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of these unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods. On July 23, 2013, the Company announced that Andrew M. Miller had resigned from the positions of Chief Executive Officer and President of Polycom and from Polycom’s Board of Directors. The Company disclosed that Mr. Miller’s resignation came after a review by the Audit Committee of certain expense submissions by Mr. Miller, where the Audit Committee found certain irregularities in the submissions, for which Mr. Miller had accepted responsibility. Specifically, the Audit Committee determined that Mr. Miller improperly submitted personal expenses to Polycom for payment as business expenses and, in doing so, submitted to Polycom false information about the nature and purpose of expenses. SEC Investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company has been cooperating with the Enforcement Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with its investigation focused on Mr. Miller's expenses and his resignation. On March 31, 2015 the Company entered into a settlement with the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement in which the Company did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings, the Company paid $750,000 in a civil penalty, which was previously fully reserved for in its consolidated financial statements, and agreed not to commit or cause any violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules. Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action. Derivative Lawsuits. On August 21, 2013 and October 16, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Saraceni v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-03880, and Donnelly v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-04810, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On October 31, 2013, these two federal derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:13-cv-03880. On January 13, 2015, the Court dismissed the operative complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On April 3, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of defendants. On November 22, 2013 and December 13, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Ware v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-256608, and Clem v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-257664, respectively, were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On January 31, 2014, these two California state derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-13-cv-256608. The Court has stayed the California state derivative litigation pending resolution of both the federal derivative lawsuit and the federal securities class action. The California state consolidated derivative lawsuit purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company, which is named as a nominal defendant in the actions. The original California state complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and allege certain defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and issued, or authorized the issuance of, materially false and misleading statements, including with respect to the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The complaints further allege that certain defendants approved an unjustified separation agreement and caused the Company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the derivative actions. Officer and Director Indemnifications As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that law, the Company has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of the Company’s insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material. Other Indemnifications As is customary in the Company’s industry, as provided for in local law in the United States. and other jurisdictions, the Company’s standard contracts provide remedies to its customers, such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims related to the use of its products. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various trigger events related to the sale and the use of its products and services. In addition, from time to time, the Company also provides protection to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability or environmental obligations.

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and SEC Investigation

From time to time, the Company is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company expects that the number and significance of these matters will increase as business expands. In particular, the Company faces an increasing number of patent and other intellectual property claims as the number of products and competitors in Polycom’s industry grows and the functionality of video, voice, data and web conferencing products overlap. Any claims or proceedings against the Company, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or require the Company to enter into royalty or licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on terms favorable to the Company or at all. If management believes that a loss arising from these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company will record a reserve for the loss. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these matters is assessed and the estimates revised. Based on currently available information, management does not believe that the ultimate outcomes of these unresolved matters, individually and in the aggregate, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and the Company’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable outcome to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations or liquidity for the period in which the unfavorable outcome occurs or becomes probable, and potentially in future periods.

On July 23, 2013, the Company announced that Andrew M. Miller had resigned from the positions of Chief Executive Officer and President of Polycom and from Polycom’s Board of Directors. The Company disclosed that Mr. Miller’s resignation came after a review by the Audit Committee of certain expense submissions by Mr. Miller, where the Audit Committee found certain irregularities in the submissions, for which Mr. Miller had accepted responsibility. Specifically, the Audit Committee determined that Mr. Miller improperly submitted personal expenses to Polycom for payment as business expenses and, in doing so, submitted to Polycom false information about the nature and purpose of expenses.

SEC Investigation. As previously disclosed, the Company has been cooperating with the Enforcement Staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with its investigation focused on Mr. Miller's expenses and his resignation. On March 31, 2015 the Company entered into a settlement with the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement in which the Company did not admit or deny the SEC’s findings, the Company paid $750,000 in a civil penalty, which was previously fully reserved for in its consolidated financial statements, and agreed not to commit or cause any violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules.

Class Action Lawsuit. On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel. On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The lawsuit further alleged that the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action.

Derivative Lawsuits. On August 21, 2013 and October 16, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Saraceni v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-03880, and Donnelly v. Miller, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-04810, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On October 31, 2013, these two federal derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:13-cv-03880. On January 13, 2015, the Court dismissed the operative complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On April 3, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of defendants.

On November 22, 2013 and December 13, 2013, two purported shareholder derivative suits, captioned Ware v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-256608, and Clem v. Miller, et al., Case No. 1-13-cv-257664, respectively, were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. On January 31, 2014, these two California state derivative actions were consolidated into In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-13-cv-256608. The Court has stayed the California state derivative litigation pending resolution of both the federal derivative lawsuit and the federal securities class action.

The California state consolidated derivative lawsuit purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company, which is named as a nominal defendant in the actions. The original California state complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste, and allege certain defendants failed to maintain adequate internal controls and issued, or authorized the issuance of, materially false and misleading statements, including with respect to the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer’s expense submissions and the Company’s internal controls. The complaints further allege that certain defendants approved an unjustified separation agreement and caused the Company to repurchase its own stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible loss relating to the derivative actions.

Officer and Director Indemnifications

As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that law, the Company has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of the Company’s insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations is not material.

Other Indemnifications

As is customary in the Company’s industry, as provided for in local law in the United States. and other jurisdictions, the Company’s standard contracts provide remedies to its customers, such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims related to the use of its products. From time to time, the Company indemnifies customers against combinations of loss, expense, or liability arising from various trigger events related to the sale and the use of its products and services. In addition, from time to time, the Company also provides protection to customers against claims related to undiscovered liabilities, additional product liability or environmental obligations.