Commitments And Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Commitments And Contingencies

Commitments And Contingencies

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Streaming Content

The Company had $2,185.5 million and $1,075.2 million of commitments at June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, related to streaming content license agreements that do not meet content library asset recognition criteria. The license agreements do not meet content library asset recognition criteria because either the fee is not known or reasonably determinable for a specific title or it is known but the title is not yet available for streaming to subscribers. The Company also has $251.3 million of streaming content obligations which are included in other non-current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.

The expected timing of payments as of June 30, 2011 for these commitments is as follows:

	(in thousands)
Less than one year	$	624,545
Due after one year and through 3 years		1,363,510
Due after 3 years and through 5 years		440,239
Due after 5 years		8,467
Total streaming content obligations	$	2,436,761

The Company also has entered into certain license agreements that include an unspecified or a maximum number of titles that the Company may or may not receive in the future and /or that include pricing contingent upon certain variables, such as domestic theatrical exhibition receipts for the title. As of the reporting date, it is unknown whether the Company will receive access to these titles or what the ultimate price per title will be. However such amounts, which are not included in the commitments described above, are expected to be significant.

The Company has a license with a certain performing rights organization ("PRO"), and is currently involved in negotiations with other PROs, that hold certain rights to music used in connection with streaming content. For the latter, the Company accrues for estimated royalties that are due to PROs and adjusts these accruals based on any changes in estimates. While the Company anticipates finalizing these negotiations, the outcome of these negotiations is uncertain. Additionally, pending litigation between certain PROs and other third parties could impact our negotiations. If the Company is unable to reach mutually acceptable terms with the PROs, the Company could become involved in similar litigation. The results of any negotiation or litigation may be materially different from management's estimates.

Litigation

From time to time, in the normal course of its operations, the Company is a party to litigation matters and claims, including claims relating to employee relations, business practices and patent infringement. Litigation can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and the Company's view of these matters may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred. The Company records a provision for contingent losses when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. An unfavorable outcome to any legal matter, if material, could have an adverse effect on the Company's operations or its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

On March 29, 2010, Parallel Networks, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et. al , Civil Action No 6:10-cv-00111-LED. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111 entitled "Method and Apparatus for Client-Server Communication Using a Limited Capability Client Over a Low-Speed Communication Link," issued on September 3, 2002. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future. With respect to this matter, management has determined that a potential loss is not probable and accordingly, no amount has been accrued. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible as it is defined by the Financial Accounting Standard Board's Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 450 Contingencies ; however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.

On September 25, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, captioned Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., et. al, Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-422. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patents Nos. 5,649,131 entitled "Communications Protocol" issued on July 15, 1997; 5,623,656 entitled "Script Based Data Communication System and Method Utilizing State Memory" issued on April 22, 1997; and 5,404,507 entitled "Apparatus and Method for Finding Records in a Database by Formulating a Query Using Equivalent Terms Which Correspond to Terms in the Input Query," issued April 4, 1995. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patents in the future. With respect to this matter, management has determined that a potential loss is not probable and accordingly, no amount has been accrued. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible as it is defined by ASC 450; however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust class action suits were filed against the Company in various United States Federal Courts. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC (collectively, Wal-Mart) were also named as defendants in these suits. These cases have been consolidated in the Northern District of California and have been assigned the multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029. A number of substantially similar suits were filed in California State Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices. A number of other cases have been filed in Federal and State courts by current or former subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury arising from similar facts. These cases have been related to MDL 2029 or, in the case of the California State cases, coordinated with the cases in Santa Clara County. The complaint(s) seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees and other equitable relief. With respect to this matter, management has determined that a potential loss is not probable and accordingly, no amount has been accrued. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible as it is defined by ASC 450; however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.

On October 24, 2008, Media Queue, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, captioned Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et. al , Civil Action No. CIV 08-402-KEW. The complaint alleges that the Company infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,389,243 entitled "Notification System and Method for Media Queue" issued on June 17, 2008. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and enhanced damages, interest and fees, and seeks to permanently enjoin the Company from infringing the patent in the future. On February 24, 2009, the case was transferred to the Northern District of California. On December 1, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. On February 10, 2010, plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling. With respect to this matter, management has determined that a potential loss is not probable and accordingly, no amount has been accrued. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible as it is defined by ASC 450; however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable.

The Company is involved in other litigation matters not listed above but does not consider the matters to be material either individually or in the aggregate at this time. The Company's view of the matters not listed may change in the future as the litigation and events related thereto unfold.

Indemnification

In the ordinary course of business, the Company has entered into contractual arrangements under which it has agreed to provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company's breach of such agreements and out of intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties.

The Company's obligations under these agreements may be limited in terms of time or amount, and in some instances, the Company may have recourse against third-parties for certain payments. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and certain of its officers that will require it, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors or officers. The terms of such obligations vary.

It is not possible to make a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments under these or similar agreements due to the conditional nature of the Company's obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. No amount has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements with respect to these indemnification guarantees.