Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 8. Legal Proceedings We are involved in the following ongoing legal matters: On November 18, 2009, we sued InfiniTek Corporation (“InfiniTek”) in the Texas State District Court in Fort Worth, Texas for breach of contract and other claims (the “Texas Action”) seeking equitable relief and unspecified damages when a dispute between the Company and InfiniTek was not resolved. All agreements with InfiniTek have been cancelled. On January 15, 2010, InfiniTek filed a counter-claim for non-payment of amounts billed. InfiniTek claimed it was owed $195,000 plus lost opportunity costs of not less than $220,000. On April 7, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed by InfiniTek in the California Superior Court in Riverside, California seeking damages in excess of $76,303 for breach of contract and lost profit (the “California Action”). This lawsuit related to one of the causes of action and the same set of underlying facts, as those in the Texas legal action. On May 7, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this action. On July 14, 2010, the court denied our motion. On August 13, 2010, we filed an answer to InfiniTek’s complaint, including a denial and affirmative defenses. On December 31, 2011, the Company and InfiniTek entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Texas Action and the California Action were both dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Vertical agreed to pay InfiniTek $82,500 in three equal installments with the last payment due by or before August 5, 2012. Upon full payment, InfiniTek shall transfer and assign ownership of the NAVPath software developed by InfiniTek for use with NOW Solutions emPath® software application and Microsoft Dynamics NAV (formerly Navision) business solution platform. The amounts in dispute were included in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities and have been adjusted to the settlement amount of $82,500 at December 31, 2011. The Company has made $37,500 in payments due under the settlement agreement as of November 16, 2012 and each party is alleging the other party is in breach of the settlement agreement. We are currently seeking to resolve all disputes with InfiniTek. On November 15, 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Vertical Action”) against Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven"), LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). We sued the Defendants for patent infringement claims under United States Patent No. 6,826,744 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) and United States Patent No. 7,716,629 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) (collectively the “the Patents-in-Suit”), both of which are owned by the Company. We seek an award of monetary damages and other relief. The case is styled Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. v Interwoven, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00490. On November 17, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed on October 14, 2010 by Interwoven in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Interwoven Action”). This lawsuit is a complaint for declaratory judgment, in which Interwoven is requesting that the court find that no valid and enforceable claim of either of the two patents referenced above has been infringed by Interwoven. The case is styled Interwoven, Inc. v Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. No. 3:10-CV-4645-RS. On January 11, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate its lawsuit with the Interwoven Action. This case is styled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00189-RS. On June 13, 2013, LG and Samsung filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Vertical filed a brief in opposition to this motion on July 1, 2013. All parties have briefed the district court and the motion is pending. On May 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Vertical’s renewed motion to transfer the Interwoven Action to the Eastern District of Texas and granted Vertical's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by Samsung in the Northern District of California to the Eastern district in Texas. On May 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Interwoven’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California with respect to Interwoven and denied Samsung’s motion to transfer its case to the Northern district. On December 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a claims construction order in the Interwoven Action concerning the terms found in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. On October 12, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an ex parte reexamination certificate of United States Patent No. 7,716,629. In the ex parte reexamination certificate, Claims 21-36, 29, 30, and 32 were confirmed; Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 28 and 31 were determined to be patentable as amended, Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20, which were dependent on an amended claim, were determined to be patentable, and claims 7, 18 and 27 were not reexamined. On October 25, 2012, the USPTO notified the Company of its intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate concerning the ex parte reexamination of United States Patent No. 6,826,744. In the notice of intent to issue ex parte reexamination certificate, the USPTO notified that the prosecution on the merits is closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding and indicated that Claims 6, 8, 19, 22, 30, 32, 41, 44, 50, 51 were confirmed; Claims 1 and 26 were cancelled; Claims 12-17, 20, 34-39, 42 and 43 are not subject to reexamination; newly presented Claims 54-57 are patentable and continuation of patent claims amended: 2-5, 7, 9-11, 18, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 40, 45-49, 52 and 53. On January 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment for unenforceability and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit in its entirety. On July 17, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action ruled on Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment with respect to infringement and damages concerning the Patents-in-Suit. The court denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of direct infringement and granted summary judgment in favor of Interwoven with respect to infringement on the doctrine of equivalents and with respect to indirect infringement. The court also granted in part and denied in part Interwoven’s motion to exclude certain expert witness testimony. Discovery has been completed. The trial date has been postponed and the parties are awaiting a trial date. On July 8, 2011, we were served with a lawsuit in the Texas State District Court in Dallas, Texas by Clark Consulting Services, Inc. (“CCS”) for breach of contract and other claims. CCS was seeking damages from us in excess of $133,750 plus attorney’s fees and interest. On August 8, 2011, we filed an answer denying CCS’s claims and setting forth affirmative defenses. In December 2011, the Company and CCS entered into a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay CCS $134,000, which was to be paid in installment payments. Due to the Company’s failure to make timely payments, an additional $60,000 was added to the outstanding balance. On October 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement under which we agreed to make monthly payments of $5,000 and pay the outstanding balance plus attorney’s fees and costs by February 1, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, the settlement amount of $149,000 is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. On January 31, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in February, March and April of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on May 1, 2013. In May 2013, the parties agreed to extend the date by which the Company has to pay off the balance of the settlement amount whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in May, June, July and August of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on September 1, 2013. As of August 14, 2013, the Company has made payments of $70,000 and the outstanding settlement balance is $79,000. On October 11 2012, Micro Focus (US), Inc. (“Micro Focus”) filed a lawsuit against NOW Solutions in the United States District Court for the southern division district of Maryland alleging breaches of its contractual obligations under an independent software agreement and copyright infringement. On January 28, 2013, NOW Solutions and Micro Focus entered into a settlement agreement whereby NOW Solutions agreed to pay Micro Focus $420,000, of which $25,000 was paid in January and the remaining $375,000 balance is to be paid under a promissory note bearing no interest and payable in three monthly installments of $15,000 beginning in February with the outstanding balance due on April 30, 2013. In connection with the settlement, the Company entered into a guaranty agreement with Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ obligations under the promissory note. The Company did not make the $375,000 payment due to Micro Focus. On May 1, 2013, NOW Solutions received a notice of default concerning its failure to pay the $375,000 balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus has a confession of judgment by NOW Solutions in connection with the promissory note for the outstanding balance due under the note, plus interest at 15% and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 15, 2013, Vertical was served with a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning the guaranty by Vertical to Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. On July 3, 2013, NOW Solutions was served with a lawsuit for a confessed judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus is seeking damages of $375,000, plus attorneys’ fees of $40,000, plus interest at 15% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed. We intend to resolve this matter with Micro Focus.

Note 8. Legal Proceedings

We are involved in the following ongoing legal matters:

On November 18, 2009, we sued InfiniTek Corporation (“InfiniTek”) in the Texas State District Court in Fort Worth, Texas for breach of contract and other claims (the “Texas Action”) seeking equitable relief and unspecified damages when a dispute between the Company and InfiniTek was not resolved. All agreements with InfiniTek have been cancelled. On January 15, 2010, InfiniTek filed a counter-claim for non-payment of amounts billed. InfiniTek claimed it was owed $195,000 plus lost opportunity costs of not less than $220,000.

On April 7, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed by InfiniTek in the California Superior Court in Riverside, California seeking damages in excess of $76,303 for breach of contract and lost profit (the “California Action”). This lawsuit related to one of the causes of action and the same set of underlying facts, as those in the Texas legal action. On May 7, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this action. On July 14, 2010, the court denied our motion. On August 13, 2010, we filed an answer to InfiniTek’s complaint, including a denial and affirmative defenses.

On December 31, 2011, the Company and InfiniTek entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Texas Action and the California Action were both dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Vertical agreed to pay InfiniTek $82,500 in three equal installments with the last payment due by or before August 5, 2012. Upon full payment, InfiniTek shall transfer and assign ownership of the NAVPath software developed by InfiniTek for use with NOW Solutions emPath® software application and Microsoft Dynamics NAV (formerly Navision) business solution platform. The amounts in dispute were included in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities and have been adjusted to the settlement amount of $82,500 at December 31, 2011. The Company has made $37,500 in payments due under the settlement agreement as of November 16, 2012 and each party is alleging the other party is in breach of the settlement agreement. We are currently seeking to resolve all disputes with InfiniTek.

On November 15, 2010, we filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “Vertical Action”) against Interwoven, Inc. ("Interwoven"), LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). We sued the Defendants for patent infringement claims under United States Patent No. 6,826,744 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) and United States Patent No. 7,716,629 (“System and Method for Generating Web Sites in an Arbitrary Object Framework”) (collectively the “the Patents-in-Suit”), both of which are owned by the Company. We seek an award of monetary damages and other relief. The case is styled Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. v Interwoven, Inc., LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00490.

On November 17, 2010, we were served with a lawsuit filed on October 14, 2010 by Interwoven in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Interwoven Action”). This lawsuit is a complaint for declaratory judgment, in which Interwoven is requesting that the court find that no valid and enforceable claim of either of the two patents referenced above has been infringed by Interwoven. The case is styled Interwoven, Inc. v Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. No. 3:10-CV-4645-RS.

On January 11, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate its lawsuit with the Interwoven Action. This case is styled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., No. 3:11-CV-00189-RS. On June 13, 2013, LG and Samsung filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Vertical filed a brief in opposition to this motion on July 1, 2013. All parties have briefed the district court and the motion is pending.

On May 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Vertical’s renewed motion to transfer the Interwoven Action to the Eastern District of Texas and granted Vertical's motion to transfer the lawsuit filed by Samsung in the Northern District of California to the Eastern district in Texas. On May 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted Interwoven’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California with respect to Interwoven and denied Samsung’s motion to transfer its case to the Northern district.

On December 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a claims construction order in the Interwoven Action concerning the terms found in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an ex parte reexamination certificate of United States Patent No. 7,716,629. In the ex parte reexamination certificate, Claims 21-36, 29, 30, and 32 were confirmed; Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 28 and 31 were determined to be patentable as amended, Claims 2-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20, which were dependent on an amended claim, were determined to be patentable, and claims 7, 18 and 27 were not reexamined.

On October 25, 2012, the USPTO notified the Company of its intent to issue an ex parte reexamination certificate concerning the ex parte reexamination of United States Patent No. 6,826,744. In the notice of intent to issue ex parte reexamination certificate, the USPTO notified that the prosecution on the merits is closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding and indicated that Claims 6, 8, 19, 22, 30, 32, 41, 44, 50, 51 were confirmed; Claims 1 and 26 were cancelled; Claims 12-17, 20, 34-39, 42 and 43 are not subject to reexamination; newly presented Claims 54-57 are patentable and continuation of patent claims amended: 2-5, 7, 9-11, 18, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31, 33, 40, 45-49, 52 and 53.

On January 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment for unenforceability and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit in its entirety.

On July 17, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Interwoven Action ruled on Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment with respect to infringement and damages concerning the Patents-in-Suit. The court denied Interwoven’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of direct infringement and granted summary judgment in favor of Interwoven with respect to infringement on the doctrine of equivalents and with respect to indirect infringement. The court also granted in part and denied in part Interwoven’s motion to exclude certain expert witness testimony.

Discovery has been completed. The trial date has been postponed and the parties are awaiting a trial date.

On July 8, 2011, we were served with a lawsuit in the Texas State District Court in Dallas, Texas by Clark Consulting Services, Inc. (“CCS”) for breach of contract and other claims. CCS was seeking damages from us in excess of $133,750 plus attorney’s fees and interest. On August 8, 2011, we filed an answer denying CCS’s claims and setting forth affirmative defenses. In December 2011, the Company and CCS entered into a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay CCS $134,000, which was to be paid in installment payments. Due to the Company’s failure to make timely payments, an additional $60,000 was added to the outstanding balance. On October 26, 2012, we entered into an agreement under which we agreed to make monthly payments of $5,000 and pay the outstanding balance plus attorney’s fees and costs by February 1, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, the settlement amount of $149,000 is included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. On January 31, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in February, March and April of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on May 1, 2013. In May 2013, the parties agreed to extend the date by which the Company has to pay off the balance of the settlement amount whereby the Company agreed to make $10,000 monthly payments in May, June, July and August of 2013 (of which $2,500 will be applied as late fees) with payment of the outstanding balance due on September 1, 2013. As of August 14, 2013, the Company has made payments of $70,000 and the outstanding settlement balance is $79,000.

On October 11 2012, Micro Focus (US), Inc. (“Micro Focus”) filed a lawsuit against NOW Solutions in the United States District Court for the southern division district of Maryland alleging breaches of its contractual obligations under an independent software agreement and copyright infringement. On January 28, 2013, NOW Solutions and Micro Focus entered into a settlement agreement whereby NOW Solutions agreed to pay Micro Focus $420,000, of which $25,000 was paid in January and the remaining $375,000 balance is to be paid under a promissory note bearing no interest and payable in three monthly installments of $15,000 beginning in February with the outstanding balance due on April 30, 2013. In connection with the settlement, the Company entered into a guaranty agreement with Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ obligations under the promissory note. The Company did not make the $375,000 payment due to Micro Focus. On May 1, 2013, NOW Solutions received a notice of default concerning its failure to pay the $375,000 balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus has a confession of judgment by NOW Solutions in connection with the promissory note for the outstanding balance due under the note, plus interest at 15% and reasonable attorney’s fees. On May 15, 2013, Vertical was served with a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning the guaranty by Vertical to Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. On July 3, 2013, NOW Solutions was served with a lawsuit for a confessed judgment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland by Micro Focus concerning NOW Solutions’ failure to make payment of the outstanding balance due under the promissory note. Micro Focus is seeking damages of $375,000, plus attorneys’ fees of $40,000, plus interest at 15% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed. We intend to resolve this matter with Micro Focus.