Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Contingencies	Jun. 01, 2023
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We are currently a party to legal actions other than those described below arising from the normal course of business, none of which are expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition. Patent Matters As is typical in the semiconductor and other high-tech industries, from time to time, others have asserted, and may in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe upon their intellectual property rights. On March 19, 2018, Micron Semiconductor (Xi’an) Co., Ltd. (“MXA”) was served with a patent infringement complaint filed by Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co., Ltd. (“Jinhua”) in the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Fujian Province, China (the “Fuzhou Court”). On April 3, 2018, Micron Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (“MSS”) was served with the same complaint. The complaint alleges that MXA and MSS infringed one Chinese patent by manufacturing and selling certain Crucial DDR4 DRAM modules. The complaint seeks an order requiring MXA and MSS to destroy inventory of the accused products and equipment for manufacturing the accused products in China; to stop manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products in China; and to pay damages of 98 million Chinese yuan plus court fees incurred. On March 21, 2018, MXA was served with a patent infringement complaint filed by United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”) in the Fuzhou Court. On April 3, 2018, MSS was served with the same complaint. The complaint alleges that MXA and MSS infringed one Chinese patent by manufacturing and selling certain Crucial DDR4 DRAM modules. The complaint seeks an order requiring MXA and MSS to destroy inventory of the accused products and equipment for manufacturing the accused products in China; to stop manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products in China; and to pay damages of 90 million Chinese yuan plus court fees incurred. On November 26, 2021, pursuant to a settlement agreement between UMC and Micron, UMC filed an application to the Fuzhou Court to withdraw its complaints against MXA and MSS. On April 3, 2018, MSS was served with another patent infringement complaint filed by Jinhua and an additional complaint filed by UMC in the Fuzhou Court. The additional complaints allege that MSS infringes two Chinese patents by manufacturing and selling certain Crucial MX300 SSDs. The complaint filed by UMC seeks an order requiring MSS to destroy inventory of the accused products and equipment for manufacturing the accused products in China; to stop manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products in China; and to pay damages of 90 million Chinese yuan plus court fees incurred. The complaint filed by Jinhua seeks an order requiring MSS to destroy inventory of the accused products and equipment for manufacturing the accused products in China; to stop manufacturing, using, selling, and offering for sale the accused products in China; and to pay damages of 98 million Chinese yuan plus court fees incurred. On November 26, 2021, pursuant to a settlement agreement between UMC and Micron, UMC filed an application to the Fuzhou Court to withdraw its complaint against MSS. On July 5, 2018, MXA and MSS were notified that the Fuzhou Court granted a preliminary injunction against those entities that enjoins them from manufacturing, selling, or importing certain Crucial and Ballistix-branded DRAM modules and solid-state drives in China. We are complying with the ruling and have requested the Fuzhou Court to reconsider or stay its decision. On May 4, 2020, Flash-Control, LLC (“Flash-Control”) filed a patent infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that four U.S. patents are infringed by unspecified DDR4 SDRAM, NVRDIMM, NVDIMM, 3D XPoint, and/or SSD products that incorporate memory controllers and flash memory. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On July 21, 2020, in a separate matter, the District Court ruled that two of the four asserted patents are invalid, and on July 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling of invalidity. On May 10, 2023, Flash-Control voluntarily dismissed its complaint with prejudice. On April 28, 2021, Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist”) filed two patent infringement actions against Micron, Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (“MSP”), and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (“MTEC”) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The first complaint alleges that one U.S. patent is infringed by certain of our non-volatile dual in-line memory modules. The second complaint alleges that three U.S. patents are infringed by certain of our load-reduced dual in-line memory modules (“LRDIMMs”). Each complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On March 31, 2022, Netlist filed a patent infringement complaint against Micron and Micron Semiconductor Germany, GmbH in Dusseldorf Regional Court alleging that two German patents are infringed by certain of our LRDIMMs. The complaint seeks damages, costs, and injunctive relief. On June 10, 2022, Netlist filed a patent infringement complaint against Micron, MSP, and MTEC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“E.D. Tex.”) alleging that six U.S. patents are infringed by certain of our memory modules and HBM products. On August 1, 2022, Netlist filed a second patent infringement complaint against the same defendants in E.D. Tex. alleging that one U.S. patent is infringed by certain of our LRDIMMs. On August 15, 2022, Netlist amended the second complaint to assert that two additional U.S. patents are infringed by certain of our LRDIMMs. The complaints in E.D. Tex. seek injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On May 10, 2021, Vervain, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Micron, MSP, and MTEC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that four U.S. patents are infringed by certain SSD products. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On April 21, 2023, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between the parties. On August 16, 2022, Sonrai Memory Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that two U.S. patents are infringed by certain SSD and NAND flash products. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On January 23, 2023, Besang Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Micron, MSP, and MTEC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that one U.S. patent is infringed by certain of our 3D NAND and SSD products. The complaint seeks an injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to substantially all of our DRAM, NAND, and other memory and storage products we manufacture, which account for substantially all of our revenue. Qimonda On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda’s insolvency proceedings, filed suit against Micron and Micron Semiconductor B.V. (“Micron B.V.”), 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 Micron B.V. and Qimonda signed in fall 2008, pursuant to which Micron B.V. purchased substantially all of Qimonda’s shares of Inotera (the “Inotera Shares”), representing approximately 18% of Inotera’s outstanding shares at that time, and seeks an order requiring us to re-transfer those shares to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks, among other things, to recover damages for the alleged value of the joint venture relationship with Inotera and 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. Following a series of hearings with pleadings, arguments, and witnesses on behalf of the Qimonda estate, on March 13, 2014, the court issued judgments: (1) ordering Micron B.V. to pay approximately $1 million in respect of certain Inotera Shares sold in connection with the original share purchase; (2) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose certain information with respect to any Inotera Shares sold by it to third parties; (3) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose the benefits derived by it from ownership of the Inotera Shares, including in particular, any profits distributed on the Inotera Shares and all other benefits; (4) denying Qimonda’s claims against Micron for any damages relating to the joint venture relationship with Inotera; and (5) determining that Qimonda’s obligations under the patent cross-license agreement are canceled. In addition, the court issued interlocutory judgments ordering, among other things: (1) that Micron B.V. transfer to the Qimonda estate the Inotera Shares still owned by Micron B.V. and pay to the Qimonda estate compensation in an amount to be specified for any Inotera Shares sold to third parties; and (2) that Micron B.V. pay the Qimonda estate as compensation an amount to be specified for benefits derived by Micron B.V. from ownership of the Inotera Shares. The interlocutory judgments had no immediate, enforceable effect and Micron, accordingly, has been able to continue to operate with full control of the Inotera Shares subject to further developments in the case. Micron and Micron B.V. appealed the judgments to the German Appeals Court, which thereafter appointed an independent expert to perform an evaluation of Dr. Jaffé’s claims that the amount Micron paid for Qimonda was less than fair market value. On March 31, 2020, the expert presented an opinion to the Appeals Court concluding that the amount paid by Micron was within an acceptable range of fair value. On October 5, 2022, the Appeals Court ruled that the relevant issue to be addressed is whether Qimonda's creditors were prejudiced such that the original transaction should be voided. On May 9, 2023, Micron and Dr. Jaffé reached an agreement in principle to dismiss the case in exchange for a one-time payment by Micron to the Qimonda estate and a waiver of each party’s claims. The agreement is expected to be formally entered by the Appeals Court in July 2023. Antitrust Matters Six cases have been filed against Micron alleging price fixing of DRAM products in the following Canadian courts on the dates indicated: Superior Court of Quebec (April 30, 2018 and May 3, 2018), the Federal Court of Canada (May 2, 2018), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (May 15, 2018), and the Supreme Court of British Columbia (May 10, 2018). The plaintiffs in these cases are individuals seeking certification of class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of DRAM in Canada (or regions of Canada) between June 1, 2016 and February 1, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”) notified Micron that it was investigating potential collusion and other anticompetitive conduct by DRAM suppliers in China. On May 31, 2018, SAMR made unannounced visits to our sales offices in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen to seek certain information as part of its investigation. We are cooperating with SAMR in its investigation. Securities Matters On February 9, 2021, a derivative complaint was filed by a shareholder against Sanjay Mehrotra and other current and former directors of Micron, allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Micron, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging violations of securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, and other violations of law involving allegedly false and misleading statements about Micron’s commitment to diversity and progress in diversifying its workforce, executive leadership, and Board of Directors. The complaint seeks damages, fees, interest, costs, and an order requiring Micron to take various actions to allegedly improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. Other Matters In the normal course of business, we are a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify another 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. Contingency Assessment Except for the expected one-time payment to the Qimonda estate described above, which is not material, we are unable to predict the outcome of any of the matters noted above and cannot make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of possible losses. A determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others or entering into a license agreement covering such intellectual property could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing, as well as the resolution of any other legal matter noted above, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, or financial condition.

The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made.