LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Aug. 31, 2014
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	14. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS SAP Intellectual Property Litigation On March 22, 2007, Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively, Oracle) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SAP AG, its wholly-owned subsidiary, SAP America, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, TomorrowNow, Inc., (the SAP Subsidiary, and collectively, the SAP Defendants) alleging that SAP unlawfully accessed Oracle’s Customer Connection support website and improperly took and used Oracle’s intellectual property. Trial commenced on November 1, 2010 on the issue of damages, as SAP had stipulated to liability. The jury awarded Oracle $1.3 billion. On September 1, 2011, the court granted the SAP Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court vacated the $1.3 billion award and held that Oracle could either accept a reduced amount or remittitur of $272 million or proceed to a new trial. On February 6, 2012, Oracle rejected the remittitur and requested a new trial. On August 2, 2012, Oracle and the SAP Defendants stipulated to a judgment of $306 million against the SAP Defendants, in lieu of having a second jury trial, while preserving both parties’ rights to appeal prior court orders. We recorded a $306 million receivable in our consolidated balance sheet and we recognized a corresponding benefit to our results of operations for the first quarter of fiscal 2013. Previously during trial we received payment of $120 million in attorneys' fees from SAP under a stipulation, and we recorded this payment upon receipt as a benefit to our results of operations during the second quarter of fiscal 2011. On August 3, 2012, the court entered the judgment and vacated the date set for the new trial. Oracle filed a Notice of Appeal on August 31, 2012, and the SAP Defendants filed a notice of appeal on September 14, 2012. The SAP Defendants subsequently dismissed their appeal. The appellate court heard oral argument on May 13, 2014, and on August 29, 2014, issued an order affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law but vacated the district court's ruling selecting $272 million as the remittitur amount. The appellate court remanded for a new trial, with instructions to condition any new trial on Oracle's rejection of a $356.7 million remittitur. Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara against Oracle Corporation alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint alleged that when Oracle announced on March 22 and 23, 2011 that it would no longer develop future versions of its software to run on HP’s Itanium-based servers, it breached a settlement agreement signed on September 20, 2010 between HP and Mark Hurd (the “Hurd Settlement Agreement”), who was both HP’s former chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief. Oracle answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint, which was amended on December 2, 2011. The amended cross-complaint alleged claims including violation of the Lanham Act. Oracle alleged that HP had secretly agreed to pay Intel to continue to develop and manufacture the Itanium microprocessor, and had misrepresented to customers that the Itanium microprocessor had a long roadmap, among other claims. Oracle sought equitable rescission of the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief. The court bifurcated the trial and tried HP’s causes of action for declaratory relief and promissory estoppel without a jury in June 2012. The court issued a final statement of decision on August 28, 2012, finding that the Hurd Settlement Agreement required Oracle to continue to develop certain of its software products for use on HP’s Itanium-based servers and to port such products at no cost to HP for as long as HP sells those servers. Oracle has announced that it is appealing this decision. The issues of breach, HP’s performance, causation and damages, HP’s tort claims, and Oracle’s cross-claims will all be tried before a jury. As of April 8, 2013, the trial is stayed pending Oracle’s appeal of the court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion, which is fully briefed, although oral argument has not yet been scheduled. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it. Derivative Litigations and Related Action On September 30, 2011, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and a second stockholder was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff on November 15, 2011. At an August 22, 2012, hearing, the court dismissed certain claims but permitted certain claims for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed. On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The derivative suit is brought by two alleged stockholders of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against one former director and all but two of our current directors, including against our then Chief Executive Officer as an alleged controlling stockholder. Plaintiffs allege that Oracle’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to purchase Pillar Data Systems, Inc. at an excessive price. Oracle’s acquisition of Pillar is structured as an earn out, under which Oracle is scheduled to make a single payment, if any, by November 30, 2014, to Pillar’s former shareholders based on an agreed-upon Earn-Out formula. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, rescission of the Pillar Data transaction, damages, disgorgement of our then Chief Executive Officer’s alleged profits, disgorgement of all compensation earned by defendants as a result of their service on Oracle’s Board or any committee of the Board, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 13, 2014, plaintiffs and defendants filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, under which our then Chief Executive Officer agreed to pay to Oracle 95% of any and all amounts, if any, that are paid to him under the Pillar earn out. Oracle agreed to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, not to exceed $15 million. At an August 12, 2014, hearing, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement, and awarded $15 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, which Oracle later paid. On the same day, the court entered a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement. These derivative actions are now concluded. Other Litigation We are party to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will result in losses that are materially in excess of amounts already recognized, if any.

SAP Intellectual Property Litigation

On March 22, 2007, Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively, Oracle) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against SAP AG, its wholly-owned subsidiary, SAP America, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary, TomorrowNow, Inc., (the SAP Subsidiary, and collectively, the SAP Defendants) alleging that SAP unlawfully accessed Oracle’s Customer Connection support website and improperly took and used Oracle’s intellectual property.

Trial commenced on November 1, 2010 on the issue of damages, as SAP had stipulated to liability. The jury awarded Oracle $1.3 billion. On September 1, 2011, the court granted the SAP Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. The court vacated the $1.3 billion award and held that Oracle could either accept a reduced amount or remittitur of $272 million or proceed to a new trial. On February 6, 2012, Oracle rejected the remittitur and requested a new trial.

On August 2, 2012, Oracle and the SAP Defendants stipulated to a judgment of $306 million against the SAP Defendants, in lieu of having a second jury trial, while preserving both parties’ rights to appeal prior court orders. We recorded a $306 million receivable in our consolidated balance sheet and we recognized a corresponding benefit to our results of operations for the first quarter of fiscal 2013. Previously during trial we received payment of $120 million in attorneys' fees from SAP under a stipulation, and we recorded this payment upon receipt as a benefit to our results of operations during the second quarter of fiscal 2011. On August 3, 2012, the court entered the judgment and vacated the date set for the new trial. Oracle filed a Notice of Appeal on August 31, 2012, and the SAP Defendants filed a notice of appeal on September 14, 2012. The SAP Defendants subsequently dismissed their appeal. The appellate court heard oral argument on May 13, 2014, and on August 29, 2014, issued an order affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law but vacated the district court's ruling selecting $272 million as the remittitur amount. The appellate court remanded for a new trial, with instructions to condition any new trial on Oracle's rejection of a $356.7 million remittitur.

Hewlett-Packard Company Litigation

On June 15, 2011, Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara against Oracle Corporation alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The complaint alleged that when Oracle announced on March 22 and 23, 2011 that it would no longer develop future versions of its software to run on HP’s Itanium-based servers, it breached a settlement agreement signed on September 20, 2010 between HP and Mark Hurd (the “Hurd Settlement Agreement”), who was both HP’s former chief executive officer and chairman of HP’s board of directors. HP sought a judicial declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief.

Oracle answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint, which was amended on December 2, 2011. The amended cross-complaint alleged claims including violation of the Lanham Act. Oracle alleged that HP had secretly agreed to pay Intel to continue to develop and manufacture the Itanium microprocessor, and had misrepresented to customers that the Itanium microprocessor had a long roadmap, among other claims. Oracle sought equitable rescission of the Hurd Settlement Agreement, and other equitable and monetary relief.

The court bifurcated the trial and tried HP’s causes of action for declaratory relief and promissory estoppel without a jury in June 2012. The court issued a final statement of decision on August 28, 2012, finding that the Hurd Settlement Agreement required Oracle to continue to develop certain of its software products for use on HP’s Itanium-based servers and to port such products at no cost to HP for as long as HP sells those servers. Oracle has announced that it is appealing this decision. The issues of breach, HP’s performance, causation and damages, HP’s tort claims, and Oracle’s cross-claims will all be tried before a jury. As of April 8, 2013, the trial is stayed pending Oracle’s appeal of the court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion, which is fully briefed, although oral argument has not yet been scheduled. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.

Derivative Litigations and Related Action

On September 30, 2011, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and a second stockholder was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff on November 15, 2011. At an August 22, 2012, hearing, the court dismissed certain claims but permitted certain claims for breach of fiduciary duty to proceed. On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The derivative suit is brought by two alleged stockholders of Oracle, purportedly on Oracle’s behalf, against one former director and all but two of our current directors, including against our then Chief Executive Officer as an alleged controlling stockholder. Plaintiffs allege that Oracle’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to purchase Pillar Data Systems, Inc. at an excessive price. Oracle’s acquisition of Pillar is structured as an earn out, under which Oracle is scheduled to make a single payment, if any, by November 30, 2014, to Pillar’s former shareholders based on an agreed-upon Earn-Out formula. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, rescission of the Pillar Data transaction, damages, disgorgement of our then Chief Executive Officer’s alleged profits, disgorgement of all compensation earned by defendants as a result of their service on Oracle’s Board or any committee of the Board, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

On June 13, 2014, plaintiffs and defendants filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, under which our then Chief Executive Officer agreed to pay to Oracle 95% of any and all amounts, if any, that are paid to him under the Pillar earn out. Oracle agreed to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, not to exceed $15 million. At an August 12, 2014, hearing, the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement, and awarded $15 million in plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, which Oracle later paid. On the same day, the court entered a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement. These derivative actions are now concluded.

Other Litigation

We are party to various other legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will result in losses that are materially in excess of amounts already recognized, if any.