Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), were named as defendants in a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-0242. The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's initial public offering in December 1999 through December 2000. Among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial public offering contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations. Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers. These various cases were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. In 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the litigation. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete dismissals from the case. A single objector appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If for any reason the settlement does not become effective and litigation resumes, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action vigorously. On October 3, 2007, a purported Geeknet shareholder filed a complaint for violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits short-swing trading, against the Company's IPO underwriters. The complaint, Vanessa Simmonds v. Credit Suisse Group, et al., Case No. C07-1583, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeks the recovery of short-swing profits. The Company is named as a nominal defendant and no recovery is sought from the Company. The plaintiff, Vanessa Simmonds, has filed similar lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging short-swing trading in the stock of 54 other companies. On July 25, 2008, a majority of the named issuer companies, including Geeknet, jointly filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims. On March 12, 2009, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss and a judgment in the favor of the moving issuers. On April 10, 2009, Ms. Simmonds appealed the order and judgment dismissing her claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 2, 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with respect to certain claims and remanded others to the district court. On January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to deny Simmonds’s petition for a rehearing en banc. On June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Simmonds’s petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to the dismissed claims and granted the underwriters’ petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to the remanded claims. On November 17, 2010, the Company filed a lawsuit against Tightrope Interactive claiming among other things trademark infringement, cyber piracy and violation of the California Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act regarding Tightrope Interactive’s use of certain software provided by VLC, a French non-profit whose software project is hosted on SourceForge.net. On December 14, 2010, Tightrope Interactive answered the complaint and filed counterclaims alleging the Company sent a wrongful Digital Millennium Copyright Act request to take down Tightrope Interactive material and seeking unspecified damages. On August 10, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement whereby both parties agreed to dismiss their claims, with prejudice. The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company reviews all claims and accrues a liability for those matters where it believes that the likelihood that a loss will occur is probable and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. At September 30, 2011, no liability was recorded for outstanding matters. Guarantees and Indemnifications The following is a summary of the Company’s agreements, including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, some of which are specifically grandfathered because the guarantees were in effect prior to December 31, 2002. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities for these agreements as of September 30, 2011. As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby the Company’s officers and directors are indemnified 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 agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has obtained director and officer liability insurance designed to limit the Company’s exposure and to enable 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 agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2011. The Company enters into standard indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally, the Company’s business partners, subsidiaries and/or customers, in connection with any patent, copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual any time after execution of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is insignificant. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2011.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"), were named as defendants in a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-0242. The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's initial public offering in December 1999 through December 2000.

Among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial public offering contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations. Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers. These various cases were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the litigation. On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement. Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete dismissals from the case. A single objector appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If for any reason the settlement does not become effective and litigation resumes, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action vigorously.

On October 3, 2007, a purported Geeknet shareholder filed a complaint for violation of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits short-swing trading, against the Company's IPO underwriters. The complaint, Vanessa Simmonds v. Credit Suisse Group, et al., Case No. C07-1583, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeks the recovery of short-swing profits. The Company is named as a nominal defendant and no recovery is sought from the Company. The plaintiff, Vanessa Simmonds, has filed similar lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging short-swing trading in the stock of 54 other companies. On July 25, 2008, a majority of the named issuer companies, including Geeknet, jointly filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims. On March 12, 2009, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss and a judgment in the favor of the moving issuers. On April 10, 2009, Ms. Simmonds appealed the order and judgment dismissing her claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 2, 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with respect to certain claims and remanded others to the district court. On January 18, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted unanimously to deny Simmonds’s petition for a rehearing en banc. On June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Simmonds’s petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to the dismissed claims and granted the underwriters’ petition for a writ of certiorari with respect to the remanded claims.

On November 17, 2010, the Company filed a lawsuit against Tightrope Interactive claiming among other things trademark infringement, cyber piracy and violation of the California Consumer Protection against Computer Spyware Act regarding Tightrope Interactive’s use of certain software provided by VLC, a French non-profit whose software project is hosted on SourceForge.net. On December 14, 2010, Tightrope Interactive answered the complaint and filed counterclaims alleging the Company sent a wrongful Digital Millennium Copyright Act request to take down Tightrope Interactive material and seeking unspecified damages. On August 10, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement whereby both parties agreed to dismiss their claims, with prejudice.

The Company is subject to various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company reviews all claims and accrues a liability for those matters where it believes that the likelihood that a loss will occur is probable and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. At September 30, 2011, no liability was recorded for outstanding matters.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

The following is a summary of the Company’s agreements, including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, some of which are specifically grandfathered because the guarantees were in effect prior to December 31, 2002. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities for these agreements as of September 30, 2011.

As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby the Company’s officers and directors are indemnified 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 agreements is unlimited; however, the Company has obtained director and officer liability insurance designed to limit the Company’s exposure and to enable 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 agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2011.

The Company enters into standard indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies, holds harmless, and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally, the Company’s business partners, subsidiaries and/or customers, in connection with any patent, copyright or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual any time after execution of the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has not incurred significant costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is insignificant. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2011.