2.2.0.7 false Commitments and Contingencies 00970 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Pure Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance pure xbrli 0 PerShare Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure Abstract 0 twc_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract twc false na duration No definition available. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string No definition available. false 3 Commitments And Contingencies Text Block 1 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 9.       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company. The complaint, which also named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers (collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint alleged coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "à la carte") basis. Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, demand, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an "à la carte" basis. On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action (the "First Amended Complaint") that, among other things, dropped the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal coordination. On December 21, 2007, the distributor defendants, including TWC, and the programmer defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On March 20, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") that modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in an attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its prior dismissal order. On April 22, 2008, the distributor defendants, including the Company, and the programmer defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which motions were denied by the court on June 25, 2008. On July 14, 2008, the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants filed motions requesting the court to certify its June 25, 2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which motions were denied by the district court on August 4, 2008. On May 4, 2009, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint") and on June 12, 2009, the distributor defendants and the programmer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the district court granted with prejudice on October 15, 2009, terminating the action. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. On June 22, 2005, Mecklenburg County filed suit against TWE-A/N in the General Court of Justice District Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina and, on July 1, 2005, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Mecklenburg County, the franchisor in TWE-A/N's Mecklenburg County cable system, alleges that TWE-A/N's predecessor failed to construct an institutional network in 1981 and that TWE-A/N assumed that obligation upon the transfer of the franchise in 1995. Mecklenburg County is seeking compensatory damages and TWE-A/N's release of certain video channels it is currently using on the cable system. On April 14, 2006, TWE-A/N filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted on January 26, 2010 on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On February 25, 2010, Mecklenburg County filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. On June 16, 1998, plaintiffs in Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable filed a purported nationwide class action in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("TWE") sold its subscribers' personally identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and common law. The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 6, 1998, TWE filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on September 7, 1999. On December 8, 1999, TWE filed a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on January 9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief. On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification and other matters. On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed. On October 25, 2005, the district court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that settlement was denied on January 26, 2007. The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve this action on terms that are not material to the Company, which the district court approved on July 6, 2009. Certain class members appealed the district court's decision with respect to attorneys' fees, and on May 24, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court's approval of the settlement.  Certain Patent Litigation On September 1, 2006, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. ("Katz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that TWC and several other cable operators, among other defendants, infringe 18 patents purportedly relating to the Company's customer call center operations and/or voicemail services. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. On March 20, 2007, this case, together with other lawsuits filed by Katz, was made subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2008, TWC and other defendants filed "common" motions for summary judgment, which argued, among other things, that a number of claims in the patents at issue are invalid under Sections 112 and 103 of the Patent Act. On June 19 and August 4, 2008, the court issued orders granting, in part, and denying, in part, those motions. Defendants filed additional individual motions for summary judgment in August 2008, which argued, among other things, that defendants' respective products do not infringe the surviving claims in plaintiff's patents. On August 13, 2009, the district court found one additional patent invalid, but denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on three remaining patents, and on October 27, 2009, the district court denied the defendants' requests for reconsideration of the decision. On January 29, 2010, the district court found one of the three remaining patents invalid based on a motion for summary judgment brought by another defendant.  The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company and a number of other cable operators infringed several patents purportedly related to a variety of technologies, including high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. In addition, on September 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the Company infringes several patents purportedly related to "high-speed cable modem internet products and services." On June 18, 2007, these cases, along with other lawsuits filed by Rembrandt, were made subject to an MDL Order transferring the case for pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2008, the district court issued its claims construction orders. In response to these orders, the plaintiff has indicated it will dismiss its claims relating to the alleged infringement of eight patents purportedly relating to high-speed data and IP-based telephony services. The plaintiff has not indicated that it will dismiss its claim relating to one remaining patent alleged to relate to digital video decoder technology. Summary judgment motions are pending relating to the remaining claim. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claim vigorously. On April 26, 2005, Acacia Media Technologies ("AMT") filed suit against TWC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that TWC infringes several patents held by AMT. AMT has publicly taken the position that delivery of broadcast video (except live programming such as sporting events), pay-per-view, VOD and ad insertion services over cable systems infringe its patents. AMT has brought similar actions regarding the same patents against numerous other entities, and all of the previously pending litigations have been made the subject of an MDL Order consolidating the actions for pretrial activity in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 25, 2005, the TWC action was consolidated into the MDL proceedings. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. On September 25, 2009, the district court ruled on the Company's summary judgment motions finding all AMT patents invalid and, on February 2, 2010, AMT appealed this decision. The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. From time to time, the Company receives notices from third parties claiming that it infringes their intellectual property rights. Claims of intellectual property infringement could require TWC to enter into royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms, incur substantial monetary liability or be enjoined preliminarily or permanently from further use of the intellectual property in question. In addition, certain agreements entered may require the Company to indemnify the other party for certain third-party intellectual property infringement claims, which could increase the Company's damages and its costs of defending against such claims. Even if the claims are without merit, defending against the claims can be time consuming and costly. As part of the restructuring of TWE, Time Warner agreed to indemnify the Company from and against any and all liabilities relating to, arising out of or resulting from specified litigation matters brought against the TWE non-cable businesses. Although Time Warner has agreed to indemnify the Company against such liabilities, TWE remains a named party in certain litigation matters. The costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in those matters (including those matters described above), and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and operating results. 9.       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true