2.2.0.25falsefalse1090 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse7/1/2010 - 3/31/2011 USD ($) USD ($) / shares $D2011Q3YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0000002491duration2010-07-01T00:00:002011-03-31T00:00:00USDStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170sharesStandardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDPerShareDividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0byi_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractbyifalsenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringNo definition available.falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<table style="font-size:10pt; font-family:'Times New Roman',times,serif;"> <tr> <td> 9.             COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES   Litigation   Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines and penalties, or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The Company has not recorded any loss accruals for these contingencies unless otherwise noted below.   On October 16, 2010, WMS Gaming Inc. (WMS) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Northern Illinois. The complaint asserts that several of the Companys products using iReel displays, including Cash Spin, Dragon Dynasty, Twin Tigers, and Sky Spirits, infringe two WMS patents, and seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. As part of its response, the Company has asserted counterclaims against WMSs Lord of the Rings and Star Trek games, for violation of the Companys patents. The Company is seeking damages and other relief against WMS, including claims that the WMS patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. It is anticipated trial will be set for early 2012.   In April 2006, International Game Technology (IGT) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserted that the Companys Bally Power Bonusing products infringe patents held by IGT, and sought injunctive relief and damages in unspecified amounts. Of the nine patents and 200 claims originally filed in the case by IGT, all but three patents and eight claims were dismissed. On April 28, 2009, the District Court issued an order finding that the Companys Power Promotions, Power Bank, and SDS/CMP Power Winners products do not infringe IGTs patents. The court also found that the Companys ACSC Power Winners and ACSC Power Reward products infringe some patent claims asserted by IGT, but not others. Appeals by both parties have been filed. In the meantime, the Company has undertaken technical changes to ensure non-infringement for the two products partially in question. The Company does not believe that potential infringement damages, if any, would be material to its financial position as the revenues from these two products to date have not been material.   On December 7, 2004, IGT filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint asserted that the Companys wheel-based games, such as Monte, Carlo Lucky Wheel and Cash For Life, its games with a reel in the top box, such as Bonus Frenzy, and its iVIEW products infringed on patents held by IGT, and sought injunctive relief and damages in unspecified amounts. As part of the defense, the Company asserted counterclaims seeking damages and other relief against IGT, including claims that IGTs patents were invalid, unenforceable and not infringed, as well as several claims that IGT engaged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. In October 2008, the court granted the Companys motions for summary judgment, ruling that IGTs two wheel patents and a touch-screen player-tracking patent were invalid; that even if the patents were valid, the Companys wheel-based games at issue would not infringe; and that certain of its iVIEW products do not infringe the two asserted player-tracking patents. The summary judgment determinations were upheld by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court then granted summary judgment in favor of IGT on the remaining portion of the case regarding IGTs alleged inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark and in favor of Bally on IGTs remaining claim that Bally infringed an IGT player tracking patent. Appeals of these summary judgment decisions have been filed.   The Company is also a party to various lawsuits relating to routine matters incidental to its business. Management does not believe that the outcome of such litigation, including the matters discussed above, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  </td></tr></table> 9.             COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES   Litigation   Liabilities for lossfalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes 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 falsefalseCOMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES12COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue