Note 12 - Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 12 – Legal Proceedings On June 28, 2012, Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Qualstar Corporation (and others) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, alleging that certain of our automated tape libraries infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766. The lawsuit is entitled: Overland Storage, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant) v. Qualstar Corporation (Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff), and assigned Case No.: 12-cv-1605-JLS-BLM. Overland is seeking injunctive relief as well as the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. We do not believe we infringe the Overland patent and we have filed a counterclaim. The litigation is currently stayed pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (Case IPR 2013-00357), with the lifting of the stay to occur shortly after the PTAB’s rendering of a decision on the IPR, in or after January 2015. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time. On August 12, 2013, Qualstar filed a complaint against former Chief Executive Officer Lawrence D. Firestone and others for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of care and the commission of corporate waste that is currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit is entitled: Qualstar Corporation v. Lawrence D. Firestone, Stanley Corker, Carl W. Gromada, Robert A. Meyer, Robert Rich, Daniel Molhoek, Allen Alley, Gerald Laber, Steven Wagner, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and assigned Case No.: BC 514889. Qualstar is seeking to enjoin the payment of Defendant Firestone’s severance package and the recovery of monetary damages to be proven at trial. On April 17, 2014, Defendant Firestone filed a cross-complaint against Qualstar for wrongful termination of employment in breach of contract, employer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and conversion. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the cross-complaint at this time. Also on April 17, 2014, Qualstar voluntarily withdrew its claims against Defendant Gerald Laber, without prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied motions filed by the remaining Defendants that had been seeking the dismissal of all causes of action against all Defendants. Subsequent to the April 18, 2014 hearing, Qualstar moved to dismiss the cross-complaint filed by Defendant Firestone. Defendants Allen Alley and Daniel Molhoek have again moved to dismiss all causes of action against them in Qualstar’s complaint. The Court heard oral argument on both Qualstar’s and Mr. Alley’s and Mr. Molhoek’s demurrers, and on September 22, 2014. The Court overruled Mr. Alley’s and Mr. Molhoek’s demurrer seeking the dismissal of the claims alleged against them in Qualstar’s complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on Qualstar’s demurrer to Mr. Firestone’s cross-complaint, and it is unknown at this time when the Court will rule on that motion. All parties have also agreed to hold a mediation session on October 9, 2014, in an attempt to resolve the claims set forth in both Qualstar’s Complaint and Defendant Lawrence D. Firestone’s Cross-Complaint. At this time, no evaluation can be made as to the likelihood of favorable or unfavorable outcome at mediation, or in the litigation generally. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time. On March 11, 2014, Qualstar filed a complaint against Needham & Company, LLC (“Needham”) entitled: Qualstar Corporation v. Needham & Company, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and assigned index number 650773/14. Qualstar asserted claims against Needham for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and negligence based on Needham’s provision of financial advisory services to Qualstar, between January 2013 and February 2013, in connection with the unsolicited partial tender offer for Qualstar submitted by BKF Capital Group, Inc. Needham has moved to dismiss the complaint and the court has not yet ruled on Needham’s motion to dismiss. At this time no evaluation can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this action. Qualstar is also subject to a variety of other claims and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. We accrue loss contingencies in connection with our commitments and contingencies, including litigation, when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2014, we had accrued aggregate current liabilities of $251,000 in probable fees and costs related to our contingent legal matters.

Note 12 - Legal Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

Note 12 – Legal Proceedings

On June 28, 2012, Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Qualstar Corporation (and others) in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, alleging that certain of our automated tape libraries infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,766. The lawsuit is entitled: Overland Storage, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant) v. Qualstar Corporation (Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff), and assigned Case No.: 12-cv-1605-JLS-BLM. Overland is seeking injunctive relief as well as the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. We do not believe we infringe the Overland patent and we have filed a counterclaim. The litigation is currently stayed pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (Case IPR 2013-00357), with the lifting of the stay to occur shortly after the PTAB’s rendering of a decision on the IPR, in or after January 2015. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time.

On August 12, 2013, Qualstar filed a complaint against former Chief Executive Officer Lawrence D. Firestone and others for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of care and the commission of corporate waste that is currently pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The lawsuit is entitled: Qualstar Corporation v. Lawrence D. Firestone, Stanley Corker, Carl W. Gromada, Robert A. Meyer, Robert Rich, Daniel Molhoek, Allen Alley, Gerald Laber, Steven Wagner, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and assigned Case No.: BC 514889. Qualstar is seeking to enjoin the payment of Defendant Firestone’s severance package and the recovery of monetary damages to be proven at trial. On April 17, 2014, Defendant Firestone filed a cross-complaint against Qualstar for wrongful termination of employment in breach of contract, employer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and conversion. Due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the cross-complaint at this time. Also on April 17, 2014, Qualstar voluntarily withdrew its claims against Defendant Gerald Laber, without prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied motions filed by the remaining Defendants that had been seeking the dismissal of all causes of action against all Defendants. Subsequent to the April 18, 2014 hearing, Qualstar moved to dismiss the cross-complaint filed by Defendant Firestone. Defendants Allen Alley and Daniel Molhoek have again moved to dismiss all causes of action against them in Qualstar’s complaint. The Court heard oral argument on both Qualstar’s and Mr. Alley’s and Mr. Molhoek’s demurrers, and on September 22, 2014. The Court overruled Mr. Alley’s and Mr. Molhoek’s demurrer seeking the dismissal of the claims alleged against them in Qualstar’s complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on Qualstar’s demurrer to Mr. Firestone’s cross-complaint, and it is unknown at this time when the Court will rule on that motion. All parties have also agreed to hold a mediation session on October 9, 2014, in an attempt to resolve the claims set forth in both Qualstar’s Complaint and Defendant Lawrence D. Firestone’s Cross-Complaint. At this time, no evaluation can be made as to the likelihood of favorable or unfavorable outcome at mediation, or in the litigation generally. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of litigation, we cannot identify probable or estimable damages related to the lawsuit at this time.

On March 11, 2014, Qualstar filed a complaint against Needham & Company, LLC (“Needham”) entitled: Qualstar Corporation v. Needham & Company, LLC, pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and assigned index number 650773/14. Qualstar asserted claims against Needham for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and negligence based on Needham’s provision of financial advisory services to Qualstar, between January 2013 and February 2013, in connection with the unsolicited partial tender offer for Qualstar submitted by BKF Capital Group, Inc. Needham has moved to dismiss the complaint and the court has not yet ruled on Needham’s motion to dismiss. At this time no evaluation can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this action.

Qualstar is also subject to a variety of other claims and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Although management currently believes that resolving claims against us, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial statements, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. We accrue loss contingencies in connection with our commitments and contingencies, including litigation, when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2014, we had accrued aggregate current liabilities of $251,000 in probable fees and costs related to our contingent legal matters.