Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings and Other Matters	Legal Proceedings and Other Matters Licensed Technology Dispute In May 2015, we notified a third party that we were terminating their rights to use certain of our technology because they failed to remit payments owed to us pursuant to a written agreement. The technology relates to certain mobile data communications products that we no longer sell. In response, the third party informed us that they believed we were in breach of a written agreement and demanded a return of royalties paid. During the three months ended January 31, 2016, this matter was settled in our favor and we received payments owed to us. TCS Legal Proceedings Infringement Matters As discussed further in Note (18) - "Subsequent Events," on February 23, 2016, we acquired TCS which is a party to a number of legal proceedings relating to customers seeking indemnification under contractual arrangements for claims and other costs associated with defending lawsuits alleging infringement of patents through their use of TCS’s products and services, including in combination with products and services of other vendors. In some cases, TCS has agreed to assume the defense of lawsuits and in other situations, TCS did not believe that its technology was infringing or that certain customers were entitled to indemnification. Due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of the TCS legal proceedings, it may be difficult to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts that TCS accrued as of the date of the acquisition. Resolution of any particular legal proceeding could have a material adverse effect on our future consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Acquisition-Related Lawsuits On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed to effect the acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. (“Acquisition Corp.”). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015: James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims against TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., in challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), dated November 22, 2015, among TCS, the Company and Acquisition Corp., (ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and (iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer made pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the TCS Board in connection with the Merger Agreement, and allege that some or all of TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from having completed the Acquisition, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. In the actions pending in Baltimore City, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against completion of the acquisition. A hearing on these motions was held on January 18, 2016. The court in Baltimore City, however, did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion prior to the expiration of the tender offer or the closing of the acquisition which actually occurred on February 23, 2016. On February 29, 2016, the court in Baltimore City issued a “Memorandum to Counsel” stating that the court had determined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints in the actions pending in that court and would issue a decision within seven to ten days. With respect to the two actions pending in Anne Arundel County, on February 10, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions. There has been no further activity in that court with respect to those actions. The Company intends to seek dismissal of the Anne Arundel County actions following receipt of the decision by the Baltimore City court dismissing the actions pending there. Other Proceedings There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Legal Proceedings and Other Matters

Licensed Technology Dispute

In May 2015, we notified a third party that we were terminating their rights to use certain of our technology because they failed to remit payments owed to us pursuant to a written agreement. The technology relates to certain mobile data communications products that we no longer sell. In response, the third party informed us that they believed we were in breach of a written agreement and demanded a return of royalties paid. During the three months ended January 31, 2016, this matter was settled in our favor and we received payments owed to us.

TCS Legal Proceedings

Infringement Matters

As discussed further in Note (18) - "Subsequent Events," on February 23, 2016, we acquired TCS which is a party to a number of legal proceedings relating to customers seeking indemnification under contractual arrangements for claims and other costs associated with defending lawsuits alleging infringement of patents through their use of TCS’s products and services, including in combination with products and services of other vendors. In some cases, TCS has agreed to assume the defense of lawsuits and in other situations, TCS did not believe that its technology was infringing or that certain customers were entitled to indemnification. Due to the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of the TCS legal proceedings, it may be difficult to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts that TCS accrued as of the date of the acquisition. Resolution of any particular legal proceeding could have a material adverse effect on our future consolidated results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Acquisition-Related Lawsuits

On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed to effect the acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. (“Acquisition Corp.”). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015: James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims against TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., in challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”), dated November 22, 2015, among TCS, the Company and Acquisition Corp., (ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and (iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer made pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the TCS Board in connection with the Merger Agreement, and allege that some or all of TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from having completed the Acquisition, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. In the actions pending in Baltimore City, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against completion of the acquisition. A hearing on these motions was held on January 18, 2016. The court in Baltimore City, however, did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion prior to the expiration of the tender offer or the closing of the acquisition which actually occurred on February 23, 2016.

On February 29, 2016, the court in Baltimore City issued a “Memorandum to Counsel” stating that the court had determined to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints in the actions pending in that court and would issue a decision within seven to ten days. With respect to the two actions pending in Anne Arundel County, on February 10, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions. There has been no further activity in that court with respect to those actions. The Company intends to seek dismissal of the Anne Arundel County actions following receipt of the decision by the Baltimore City court dismissing the actions pending there.

Other Proceedings

There are certain other pending and threatened legal actions which arise in the normal course of business. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation is difficult to accurately predict, we believe that the outcome of these other pending and threatened actions will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.