Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Nov. 28, 2013
Disclosure Text Block [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We have accrued a liability and charged operations for the estimated costs of adjudication or settlement of various asserted and unasserted claims existing as of the balance sheet date, including those described below. We are currently a party to other legal actions arising from the normal course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Rambus On May 5, 2004, Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Francisco County) against us and other DRAM suppliers which alleged that the defendants harmed Rambus by engaging in concerted and unlawful efforts affecting Rambus DRAM by eliminating competition and stifling innovation in the market for computer memory technology and computer memory chips. Rambus' complaint alleged various causes of action under California state law including, among other things, a conspiracy to restrict output and fix prices, a conspiracy to monopolize, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Rambus sought a judgment for damages of approximately $3.9 billion, joint and several liability, trebling of damages awarded, punitive damages, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from the conduct alleged in the complaint, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trial began on June 20, 2011, and the case went to the jury on September 21, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the jury found for us on all claims. On April 2, 2012, Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the California 1st District Court of Appeal. We were engaged in litigation with Rambus relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus related to patent matters were pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy. In December 2013, subsequent to the end of our first fiscal quarter of 2014, we settled all pending litigation between us and Rambus, including all antitrust and patent matters. We also entered into a 7-year term patent cross-license agreement with Rambus that allows us to avoid costs of patent-related litigation during the term. We agreed to pay Rambus up to $10 million per quarter over 7 years, for a total of $280 million. The primary benefits we received from these arrangements were (1) the settlement and termination of all existing litigation, (2) the avoidance of future litigation expenses and (3) the avoidance of future management and customer disruptions. As a result, other operating expense for the quarter ended November 28, 2013 included a $233 million charge to accrue a liability, which reflects the discounted value of amounts due under this arrangement. Patent Matters As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time others have asserted, and may in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights. On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants, including Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively “Elpida”). On August 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM and image sensor products infringe four U.S. patents and that certain Elpida DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On March 23, 2012, Elpida filed a Notice of Filing and Hearing on Petition Under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Issuance of Provisional Relief that included an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware staying judicial proceedings against Elpida. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' case against Elpida is stayed. On December 5, 2011, the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours infringe three U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. We have filed three petitions for inter-partes review by the Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of each of the patents in suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held a hearing in connection with the three petitions on December 9, 2013. A final decision is expected by the end of March 2014. The District Court has stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the inter-partes review by the Patent Office. On April 27, 2012, Semcon Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that our use of various chemical mechanical planarization systems purchased from Applied Materials and others infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On September 24, 2013, the Court entered an order staying our case pending the resolution of co-pending cases brought by Semcon Tech, LLC against Applied Materials and Ebara Technologies, Inc. On December 7, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a patent infringement against Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively "Elpida"), and numerous other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain Elpida products infringe four U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Prior to answering the complaint, Elpida and other defendants filed motions to stay the case pending final resolution of a case before the International Trade Commission ("ITC") against Elpida and other respondents, alleging infringement of the same patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas case (In The Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the "ITC Action")). On February 25, 2008, the Eastern District of Texas Court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action. On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination in the ITC Action finding no violation by Elpida. Tessera Inc. subsequently appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's Final Determination. The Eastern District of Texas case currently remains stayed. Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR, DDR2, DDR3, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPSDR, NAND Flash, image sensor products and certain other memory products we manufacture, which account for a significant portion of our net sales. We are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. A court determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Antitrust Matters At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against us and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July, 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, we executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, we agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. We paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement agreement. On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July 1998 to June 2002. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the above discussion of the U.S. indirect purchaser cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Securities Matters On July 12, 2013, seven former shareholders of Elpida Memory, Inc. ("Elpida") filed a complaint against Messrs. Sakamoto, Adachi, Gomi, Shirai, Tsay-Jiu, Wataki, Kinoshita, and Takahasi in their capacity as members of the board of directors of Elpida as of February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the financial condition of Elpida and deceive shareholders prior to Elpida filing a petition for corporate reorganization on February 27, 2013. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2013, along with attorneys’ fees and interest. At a hearing on September 25, 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew the complaint against Mr. Tsay-Jiu. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this matter could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Commercial Matters On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") insolvency proceedings, filed suit against us and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary, in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between us and Qimonda signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which we purchased all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. and seeks an order requiring us to retransfer the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks to terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross-license between us and Qimonda entered into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. A three-judge panel will render a decision after a series of hearings with pleadings, arguments and witnesses. The most recent hearing was held on November 12, 2013 and an additional hearing is scheduled in January 2014. We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera shares or equivalent monetary damages and the termination of the patent cross-license, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. As of November 28, 2013, the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda had a carrying value of $241 million and a market value of $814 million. Other In the normal course of business, we are a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, our payments under these types of agreements have not had a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Contingencies

We have accrued a liability and charged operations for the estimated costs of adjudication or settlement of various asserted and unasserted claims existing as of the balance sheet date, including those described below. We are currently a party to other legal actions arising from the normal course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Rambus

On May 5, 2004, Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Francisco County) against us and other DRAM suppliers which alleged that the defendants harmed Rambus by engaging in concerted and unlawful efforts affecting Rambus DRAM by eliminating competition and stifling innovation in the market for computer memory technology and computer memory chips. Rambus' complaint alleged various causes of action under California state law including, among other things, a conspiracy to restrict output and fix prices, a conspiracy to monopolize, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Rambus sought a judgment for damages of approximately $3.9 billion, joint and several liability, trebling of damages awarded, punitive damages, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from the conduct alleged in the complaint, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trial began on June 20, 2011, and the case went to the jury on September 21, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the jury found for us on all claims. On April 2, 2012, Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the California 1st District Court of Appeal.

We were engaged in litigation with Rambus relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus related to patent matters were pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy.

In December 2013, subsequent to the end of our first fiscal quarter of 2014, we settled all pending litigation between us and Rambus, including all antitrust and patent matters. We also entered into a 7-year term patent cross-license agreement with Rambus that allows us to avoid costs of patent-related litigation during the term. We agreed to pay Rambus up to $10 million per quarter over 7 years, for a total of $280 million. The primary benefits we received from these arrangements were (1) the settlement and termination of all existing litigation, (2) the avoidance of future litigation expenses and (3) the avoidance of future management and customer disruptions. As a result, other operating expense for the quarter ended November 28, 2013 included a $233 million charge to accrue a liability, which reflects the discounted value of amounts due under this arrangement.

Patent Matters

As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time others have asserted, and may in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights.

On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants, including Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively “Elpida”). On August 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM and image sensor products infringe four U.S. patents and that certain Elpida DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On March 23, 2012, Elpida filed a Notice of Filing and Hearing on Petition Under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Issuance of Provisional Relief that included an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware staying judicial proceedings against Elpida. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' case against Elpida is stayed.

On December 5, 2011, the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours infringe three U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. We have filed three petitions for inter-partes review by the Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of each of the patents in suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held a hearing in connection with the three petitions on December 9, 2013. A final decision is expected by the end of March 2014. The District Court has stayed the litigation pending the outcome of the inter-partes review by the Patent Office.

On April 27, 2012, Semcon Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that our use of various chemical mechanical planarization systems purchased from Applied Materials and others infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On September 24, 2013, the Court entered an order staying our case pending the resolution of co-pending cases brought by Semcon Tech, LLC against Applied Materials and Ebara Technologies, Inc.

On December 7, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a patent infringement against Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively "Elpida"), and numerous other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain Elpida products infringe four U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Prior to answering the complaint, Elpida and other defendants filed motions to stay the case pending final resolution of a case before the International Trade Commission ("ITC") against Elpida and other respondents, alleging infringement of the same patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas case (In The Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the "ITC Action")). On February 25, 2008, the Eastern District of Texas Court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action. On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination in the ITC Action finding no violation by Elpida. Tessera Inc. subsequently appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's Final Determination. The Eastern District of Texas case currently remains stayed.

Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR, DDR2, DDR3, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPSDR, NAND Flash, image sensor products and certain other memory products we manufacture, which account for a significant portion of our net sales.

We are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. A court determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Antitrust Matters

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against us and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July, 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, we executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the class settlements, we agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. We paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement agreement.

On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July 1998 to June 2002.

We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the above discussion of the U.S. indirect purchaser cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Securities Matters

On July 12, 2013, seven former shareholders of Elpida Memory, Inc. ("Elpida") filed a complaint against Messrs. Sakamoto, Adachi, Gomi, Shirai, Tsay-Jiu, Wataki, Kinoshita, and Takahasi in their capacity as members of the board of directors of Elpida as of February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the financial condition of Elpida and deceive shareholders prior to Elpida filing a petition for corporate reorganization on February 27, 2013. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2013, along with attorneys’ fees and interest. At a hearing on September 25, 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew the complaint against Mr. Tsay-Jiu.

We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this matter could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Commercial Matters

On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda AG ("Qimonda") insolvency proceedings, filed suit against us and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary, in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between us and Qimonda signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which we purchased all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. and seeks an order requiring us to retransfer the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks to terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross-license between us and Qimonda entered into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. A three-judge panel will render a decision after a series of hearings with pleadings, arguments and witnesses. The most recent hearing was held on November 12, 2013 and an additional hearing is scheduled in January 2014. We are unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera shares or equivalent monetary damages and the termination of the patent cross-license, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. As of November 28, 2013, the Inotera shares purchased from Qimonda had a carrying value of $241 million and a market value of $814 million.

Other

In the normal course of business, we are a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, our payments under these types of agreements have not had a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.