Subsequent Events	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Subsequent Events [Text Block]	SUBSEQUENT EVENTS Fox River Environmental Matter In relation to the Fox River environmental matter discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," API's previously reported motion for summary judgment, premised on the argument that API had no direct CERCLA liability at the Fox River, was denied by the Wisconsin federal court in December 2011, but on API's motion for reconsideration of that decision, the court granted API's motion on April 10, 2012, and dismissed the Governments' claims against API in the Government enforcement action. As a result that case will proceed against the Company and the remaining defendants, and the motion for an injunction to compel remediation activity in 2012, originally filed against both the Company and API, will proceed only against the Company. This decision holding that API has no direct CERCLA liability is not expected to have an impact on the Company's net Fox River reserve, as the Company believes that it has no effect on API's contractual and judgment-based obligations to NCR with respect to the Fox River. The federal Government's motion for a preliminary injunction to compel a certain amount of remediation was the subject of an evidentiary hearing before the Wisconsin federal court on April 12, 2012. The court did not decide the matter at the hearing, and has not issued a decision. Commission Arrangement In relation to the commission arrangement entered into by the Company's Consumables business discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," the appeal from the December 2010 jury verdict was decided adversely to the Company in April 2012. ATL Litigation In relation to the ATL litigation discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," the appeal relating to certain ATM-related patents was decided in favor of NCR's indemnitees and customers, 7-Eleven and Cardtronics, in April 2012; a favorable ruling was also issued in the related ATL appeal against the USPTO

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Fox River Environmental Matter In relation to the Fox River environmental matter discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," API's previously reported motion for summary judgment, premised on the argument that API had no direct CERCLA liability at the Fox River, was denied by the Wisconsin federal court in December 2011, but on API's motion for reconsideration of that decision, the court granted API's motion on April 10, 2012, and dismissed the Governments' claims against API in the Government enforcement action. As a result that case will proceed against the Company and the remaining defendants, and the motion for an injunction to compel remediation activity in 2012, originally filed against both the Company and API, will proceed only against the Company. This decision holding that API has no direct CERCLA liability is not expected to have an impact on the Company's net Fox River reserve, as the Company believes that it has no effect on API's contractual and judgment-based obligations to NCR with respect to the Fox River. The federal Government's motion for a preliminary injunction to compel a certain amount of remediation was the subject of an evidentiary hearing before the Wisconsin federal court on April 12, 2012. The court did not decide the matter at the hearing, and has not issued a decision.

Commission Arrangement In relation to the commission arrangement entered into by the Company's Consumables business discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," the appeal from the December 2010 jury verdict was decided adversely to the Company in April 2012.

ATL Litigation In relation to the ATL litigation discussed in Note 8, "Commitments and Contingencies," the appeal relating to certain ATM-related patents was decided in favor of NCR's indemnitees and customers, 7-Eleven and Cardtronics, in April 2012; a favorable ruling was also issued in the related ATL appeal against the USPTO