Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Apr. 29, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE 11 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters — Dell is involved in various claims, suits, assessments, investigations, and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including those identified below, consisting of matters involving consumer, antitrust, tax, intellectual property, and other issues on a global basis. Dell accrues a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Dell reviews these accruals at least quarterly and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and Dell's views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations, or legal proceedings change, changes in Dell's accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. However, where a liability is reasonably possible and material, such matters have been disclosed. The following is a discussion of Dell's significant on-going legal matters and other proceedings: SEC Investigation and Related Settlements - In August 2005, the SEC initiated an inquiry into certain of Dell's accounting and financial reporting matters and requested that Dell provide certain documents. The SEC expanded that inquiry in June 2006 and entered a formal order of investigation in October 2006. In August 2006, because of potential issues identified in the course of responding to the SEC's requests for information, Dell's Audit Committee, on the recommendation of management and in consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Dell's independent registered public accounting firm, initiated an independent investigation into certain accounting and financial reporting matters, which was completed in the third quarter of Fiscal 2008. Dell subsequently restated its annual and interim financial statements for Fiscal 2003, Fiscal 2004, Fiscal 2005, Fiscal 2006, and the first quarter of Fiscal 2007. On July 22, 2010, Dell reached a settlement with the SEC resolving the SEC's investigation into Dell's disclosures and alleged omissions prior to Fiscal 2008 regarding certain aspects of its commercial relationship with Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and into separate accounting and financial reporting matters. The SEC agreed to settlements with both the company and Michael Dell, who serves as the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The company and Mr. Dell entered into the settlements without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's complaint, as is consistent with common SEC practice. Under its settlement, the company consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of antifraud provisions, non-scienter (negligence) based fraud provisions and other non-fraud based provisions related to reporting, the maintenance of accurate books and records, and internal accounting controls under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act. The company also agreed to perform, and has initiated, certain undertakings, including retaining and working with an independent consultant, to enhance its disclosure processes, practices and controls. Pursuant to the settlement terms, the company expects to have completed or implemented these undertakings within 36 months after court approval of the settlement on October 13, 2010. In addition, the company paid into an escrow account a civil monetary penalty of $100 million and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal 2011. The SEC's allegations with respect to Mr. Dell and his settlement were limited to the alleged failure to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the company's commercial relationship with Intel prior to Fiscal 2008. Mr. Dell's settlement did not involve any of the separate accounting fraud charges that were settled by the company. Moreover, Mr. Dell's settlement was limited to claims in which only negligence, and not fraudulent intent, is required to establish liability, as well as secondary liability claims for other non-fraud charges. Under his settlement, Mr. Dell consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of these negligence-based provisions and other non-fraud based provisions related to periodic reporting. Specifically, Mr. Dell consented to be enjoined from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and Rule 13a-14 under the Exchange Act and from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act. In addition, Mr. Dell agreed to a civil monetary penalty of $4 million. The settlement does not include any restrictions on Mr. Dell's continued service as an officer or director of the company. The independent directors of the Board of Directors unanimously determined that it is in the best interests of Dell and its stockholders that Mr. Dell continue to serve as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company. The settlements with the company and Mr. Dell were approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 13, 2010. Securities Litigation - Four putative securities class actions filed between September 13, 2006, and January 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against Dell and certain of its current and former directors and officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities Litigation, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court. The lead plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's financial statements, governmental investigations, internal controls, known battery problems and business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell securities. This action also included Dell's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. On October 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. On November 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2009. On November 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a written settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to the proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending litigation. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on December 21, 2009. The settlement was subject to certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class not exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the District Court. During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the original opt-out period in the notice approved by the District Court expired without the specified percentage being exceeded. The District Court subsequently granted final approval for the settlement and entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010. Dell paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal 2011. Certain objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to approval of the settlement. While there can be no assurances with respect to litigation, Dell believes it is unlikely that the settlement will be overturned on appeal. Copyright Levies - In many European Union (“EU”) member countries, there are requirements to collect and remit levies to collecting societies based on sales of certain devices. These levies apply to Dell and others in the industry. The amount of levies is generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies. Levies are intended to compensate copyright holders for “fair use” copying of copyrighted materials. The collecting societies then distribute the levies to copyright holders. Some EU member countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while some other EU member countries are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and their applicability in the digital hardware environment. Dell, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders. As described below, there are multiple proceedings involving Dell or its competitors in certain EU member countries, where plaintiffs are seeking to impose or modify levies upon equipment (such as multifunction devices, phones, personal computers (“PCs”) and printers), alleging that these devices enable copying of copyrighted materials. Even if Dell is not a party to all these proceedings, the decisions could impact Dell's business and the amount of copyright levies Dell may be required to collect. These various proceedings also challenge whether the levy schemes in those countries comply with EU law. There are multiple proceedings in Germany that could impact Dell's obligation to collect and remit levies in Germany. In July 2004, VG Wort, a German collecting society, filed a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) in the Stuttgart Civil Court seeking copyright levies on printers. On December 22, 2004, the court held that HP was liable for payments regarding all printers using ASCII code sold in Germany. HP appealed the decision and after an intermediary ruling upholding the trial court's decision, the German Federal Supreme Court (“GFSC”) in December 2007 issued a judgment that printers are not subject to levies under the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007. Based upon the GFSC's ruling, Dell concluded there was no obligation for Dell to collect or accrue levies for printers sold by it prior to December 31, 2007. VG Wort filed a claim with the German Constitutional Court (“GCC”) challenging the GFSC's ruling that printers are not subject to levies. On September 21, 2010, the GCC revoked the GFSC decision and referred the case back to the GFSC to determine if the ruling gave due credit to the copyright owner's property rights under the German Constitution and whether the GFSC should have referred the case to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). The GFSC has indicated it will issue its decision in this case in July 2011. Dell believes that the GFSC can decide to refer the case to the ECJ, confirm its prior decision, or conclude that printers are subject to levies under German law. Dell has not accrued any liability in this matter, as Dell does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim. Similarly, in September 2003, VG Wort filed a lawsuit against Fujitsu Siemens Computer GmbH ("FSC") in the Munich Civil Court in Munich, Germany seeking levies on PCs. On December 23, 2004, the Munich Civil Court held that PCs are subject to a levy and that FSC must pay €12 plus compound interest for each PC sold in Germany since March 2001. FSC appealed this decision and after an intermediary ruling upholding the decision, the GFSC in October 2008 issued a judgment that PCs were not photocopiers within the meaning of the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007 and, therefore, not subject to the levies on photocopiers established by that law. VG Wort filed a claim with the GCC challenging that ruling. In January 2011, as in the HP case above, the GCC revoked the GFSC decision and referred the case back to the GFSC to determine if the ruling gave due credit to the copyright owner's property rights under the German Constitution and whether the GFSC should have referred the case to the European Court of Justice. Dell believes that the GFSC can decide to refer the case to the ECJ, confirm its prior decision, or conclude that PCs are subject to levies under German law. Dell has not accrued any liability in this matter, as Dell does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim. In a separate matter, on December 29, 2005, Zentralstelle Für private Überspielungrechte (“ZPÜ”), a joint association of various German collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against Dell's German subsidiary before the Board of Arbitration at the German Patent and Trademark Office in Munich, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the German Regional Court in Munich on February 21, 2008, seeking levies to be paid on each PC sold by Dell in Germany through the end of calendar year 2007. On December 23, 2009, ZPÜ and the German industry association, BCH, reached a settlement regarding audio-video copyright levy litigation (with levies ranging from €3.15 to €13.65 per unit). Dell joined this settlement on February 23, 2010 and has paid the amounts due thereunder. However, because the settlement agreement expired on December 31, 2010, the amount of levies payable after calendar year 2010, as well as Dell's ability to recover such amounts through increased prices, remain uncertain. Additionally, there are proceedings in Spain to which Dell is not a party, but that could impact Dell's obligation to collect and remit levies across the EU. In March 2006, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (“SGAE”), a Spanish collecting society, sued Padawan SL ("Padawan"), a company unaffiliated with Dell, in the Commercial Court number four of Barcelona in Spain claiming that Padawan owed levies on the CD-Rs, CD-RWs, DVD-Rs, and MP3 players sold by Padawan. In June 2007, the trial court upheld SGAE's claim and ordered Padawan to pay specified levies. Padawan appealed the decision to the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, which stayed the proceedings in order to refer the case to the ECJ. The ECJ considered the interpretation of the term “fair compensation” under the European Copyright Directive (“Directive”). On October 21, 2010, the ECJ issued its decision and outlined how fair compensation should be considered under the Directive by the EU member states. The ECJ stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The ECJ also stated that the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to devices not made available to private users and clearly reserved for uses other than private copying is incompatible with the Directive. The matter was referred back to the Spanish court to determine whether the Spanish copyright levy scheme is compatible with the Directive based on the guidance provided by the ECJ. And in March 2011, the Appeals Court of Barcelona decided in the industry's favor, noting that the indiscriminate payment of copyright levies does not comply with EU law. The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Spain. It is unclear at this time what the effect of this decision will be on copyright levies in Spain and the other EU member states. Dell continues to collect and remit levies in Spain and other EU countries where it has determined that based on local law it is probable that Dell has an obligation. The ultimate resolution of these matters and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, including the number of units potentially affected, the amount of levies imposed, and the ability of Dell to recover such amounts remains uncertain at this time. Should the courts determine there is liability for previous units shipped beyond what Dell has collected or accrued, Dell would be liable for such incremental amounts. Recovery would only be possible on future collections related to future shipments. Sharp Corporation v Dell Inc. - Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) filed a suit against Dell in October 2008 for trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution in the U.S. District Court in the State of New Jersey. Sharp alleges that it is the owner of the “SHARP” mark and that this mark and related marks are used in connection with Sharp's sale of a wide variety of electrical and consumer electronic products. Sharp alleges that Dell has infringed the “SHARP” mark by using the “UltraSharp” and “Dell UltraSharp” marks to promote, advertise and sell computer monitors and notebook computers, from 2002 to the present. Sharp alleges that Dell's use of “UltraSharp” has and will continue to cause actual consumer confusion regarding the source of “UltraSharp.” In addition, Sharp has asserted a claim for dilution of its SHARP marks on the alleged ground that Dell's use of DELL UltraSharp and UltraSharp has weakened the distinctive value of its marks. Sharp seeks damages measured by Dell's profits made from the sale of DELL UltraSharp products, treble damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Sharp also seeks a permanent injunction precluding the use of Dell's allegedly infringing “UltraSharp” mark. Dell disputes the claims and is vigorously defending the case. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for June 2011. The ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, remains uncertain at this time. Chad Brazil and Steven Seick v Dell Inc. - Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action suit against Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that Dell advertised discounts on its products from false “regular” prices, in violation of California law. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits from the alleged false advertising, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In December 2010, the District Court certified a class consisting of all California residents who had purchased certain products advertised with a former sales price on the consumer segment of Dell's website during an approximately four year period between March 2003 and June 2007. During the first quarter of Fiscal 2012, the plaintiffs and Dell reached a classwide settlement in principle regarding the dispute on terms that are not material to the company, however, the settlement is still subject to submission and approval by the District Court. Convolve Inc. v Dell Inc. - Convolve, Inc. sued Dell, Western Digital Corporation (“Western Digital”), Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., and Hitachi Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi”) on June 18, 2008 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging that the defendants infringe United States Patent No. 4,916,635 (entitled “Shaping Command Inputs to Minimize Unwanted Dynamics”) and United States Patent No. 6,314,473 (entitled “System for Removing Selected Unwanted Frequencies in Accordance with Altered Settings in a User Interface of a Data Storage Device”). Western Digital and Hitachi are hard drive suppliers of Dell. This case is scheduled to go to trial in July 2011. Plaintiff seeks damages for each product with an allegedly infringing hard drive sold by Dell, plus exemplary damages for allegedly willful infringement. Dell disputes the plaintiff's damages calculations and also disputes the validity of the patents. Dell further disputes that it infringes the patents, and will assert all of these defenses at trial. The ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, remain uncertain at this time. Other Litigation - The various legal proceedings in which Dell is involved include commercial litigation and a variety of patent suits. In some of these cases, Dell is the sole defendant. More often, particularly in the patent suits, Dell is one of a number of defendants in the electronics and technology industries. Dell is actively defending a number of patent infringement suits, and several pending claims are in various stages of evaluations. While the number of patent cases has grown over time, Dell does not currently anticipate that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Dell's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. While Dell does not expect that the ultimate outcomes in these proceedings or matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, the results and timing of the ultimate resolutions of these various proceedings and matters are inherently unpredictable. Whether the outcome of any claim, suit, assessment, investigation, or legal proceeding, individually or collectively, could have a material adverse effect on Dell's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including the nature, timing, and amount of any associated expenses, amounts paid in settlement, damages or other remedies or consequences.

NOTE 11 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters — Dell is involved in various claims, suits, assessments, investigations, and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, including those identified below, consisting of matters involving consumer, antitrust, tax, intellectual property, and other issues on a global basis. Dell accrues a liability when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and that it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. Dell reviews these accruals at least quarterly and adjusts them to reflect ongoing negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other relevant information. To the extent new information is obtained and Dell's views on the probable outcomes of claims, suits, assessments, investigations, or legal proceedings change, changes in Dell's accrued liabilities would be recorded in the period in which such determination is made. For some matters, the amount of liability is not probable or the amount cannot be reasonably estimated and therefore accruals have not been made. However, where a liability is reasonably possible and material, such matters have been disclosed. The following is a discussion of Dell's significant on-going legal matters and other proceedings:

SEC Investigation and Related Settlements - In August 2005, the SEC initiated an inquiry into certain of Dell's accounting and financial reporting matters and requested that Dell provide certain documents. The SEC expanded that inquiry in June 2006 and entered a formal order of investigation in October 2006. In August 2006, because of potential issues identified in the course of responding to the SEC's requests for information, Dell's Audit Committee, on the recommendation of management and in consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Dell's independent registered public accounting firm, initiated an independent investigation into certain accounting and financial reporting matters, which was completed in the third quarter of Fiscal 2008. Dell subsequently restated its annual and interim financial statements for Fiscal 2003, Fiscal 2004, Fiscal 2005, Fiscal 2006, and the first quarter of Fiscal 2007.

On July 22, 2010, Dell reached a settlement with the SEC resolving the SEC's investigation into Dell's disclosures and alleged omissions prior to Fiscal 2008 regarding certain aspects of its commercial relationship with Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and into separate accounting and financial reporting matters. The SEC agreed to settlements with both the company and Michael Dell, who serves as the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The company and Mr. Dell entered into the settlements without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's complaint, as is consistent with common SEC practice.

Under its settlement, the company consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of antifraud provisions, non-scienter (negligence) based fraud provisions and other non-fraud based provisions related to reporting, the maintenance of accurate books and records, and internal accounting controls under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act. The company also agreed to perform, and has initiated, certain undertakings, including retaining and working with an independent consultant, to enhance its disclosure processes, practices and controls. Pursuant to the settlement terms, the company expects to have completed or implemented these undertakings within 36 months after court approval of the settlement on October 13, 2010. In addition, the company paid into an escrow account a civil monetary penalty of $100 million and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal 2011.

The SEC's allegations with respect to Mr. Dell and his settlement were limited to the alleged failure to provide adequate disclosures with respect to the company's commercial relationship with Intel prior to Fiscal 2008. Mr. Dell's settlement did not involve any of the separate accounting fraud charges that were settled by the company. Moreover, Mr. Dell's settlement was limited to claims in which only negligence, and not fraudulent intent, is required to establish liability, as well as secondary liability claims for other non-fraud charges. Under his settlement, Mr. Dell consented to a permanent injunction against future violations of these negligence-based provisions and other non-fraud based provisions related to periodic reporting. Specifically, Mr. Dell consented to be enjoined from violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act and Rule 13a-14 under the Exchange Act and from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 under the Exchange Act. In addition, Mr. Dell agreed to a civil monetary penalty of $4 million. The settlement does not include any restrictions on Mr. Dell's continued service as an officer or director of the company.

The independent directors of the Board of Directors unanimously determined that it is in the best interests of Dell and its stockholders that Mr. Dell continue to serve as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company.

The settlements with the company and Mr. Dell were approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on October 13, 2010.

Securities Litigation - Four putative securities class actions filed between September 13, 2006, and January 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against Dell and certain of its current and former directors and officers were consolidated as In re Dell Securities Litigation, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the court. The lead plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions regarding Dell's financial statements, governmental investigations, internal controls, known battery problems and business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell securities. This action also included Dell's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. On October 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. On November 3, 2008, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and the officer defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2009. On November 20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a written settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to the proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending litigation. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on December 21, 2009. The settlement was subject to certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class not exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the District Court. During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the original opt-out period in the notice approved by the District Court expired without the specified percentage being exceeded. The District Court subsequently granted final approval for the settlement and entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010. Dell paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal 2011. Certain objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to approval of the settlement. While there can be no assurances with respect to litigation, Dell believes it is unlikely that the settlement will be overturned on appeal.

Copyright Levies - In many European Union (“EU”) member countries, there are requirements to collect and remit levies to collecting societies based on sales of certain devices. These levies apply to Dell and others in the industry. The amount of levies is generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies. Levies are intended to compensate copyright holders for “fair use” copying of copyrighted materials. The collecting societies then distribute the levies to copyright holders. Some EU member countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while some other EU member countries are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and their applicability in the digital hardware environment. Dell, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders. As described below, there are multiple proceedings involving Dell or its competitors in certain EU member countries, where plaintiffs are seeking to impose or modify levies upon equipment (such as multifunction devices, phones, personal computers (“PCs”) and printers), alleging that these devices enable copying of copyrighted materials. Even if Dell is not a party to all these proceedings, the decisions could impact Dell's business and the amount of copyright levies Dell may be required to collect. These various proceedings also challenge whether the levy schemes in those countries comply with EU law.

There are multiple proceedings in Germany that could impact Dell's obligation to collect and remit levies in Germany. In July 2004, VG Wort, a German collecting society, filed a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) in the Stuttgart Civil Court seeking copyright levies on printers. On December 22, 2004, the court held that HP was liable for payments regarding all printers using ASCII code sold in Germany. HP appealed the decision and after an intermediary ruling upholding the trial court's decision, the German Federal Supreme Court (“GFSC”) in December 2007 issued a judgment that printers are not subject to levies under the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007. Based upon the GFSC's ruling, Dell concluded there was no obligation for Dell to collect or accrue levies for printers sold by it prior to December 31, 2007. VG Wort filed a claim with the German Constitutional Court (“GCC”) challenging the GFSC's ruling that printers are not subject to levies. On September 21, 2010, the GCC revoked the GFSC decision and referred the case back to the GFSC to determine if the ruling gave due credit to the copyright owner's property rights under the German Constitution and whether the GFSC should have referred the case to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). The GFSC has indicated it will issue its decision in this case in July 2011. Dell believes that the GFSC can decide to refer the case to the ECJ, confirm its prior decision, or conclude that printers are subject to levies under German law. Dell has not accrued any liability in this matter, as Dell does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim.

Similarly, in September 2003, VG Wort filed a lawsuit against Fujitsu Siemens Computer GmbH ("FSC") in the Munich Civil Court in Munich, Germany seeking levies on PCs. On December 23, 2004, the Munich Civil Court held that PCs are subject to a levy and that FSC must pay €12 plus compound interest for each PC sold in Germany since March 2001. FSC appealed this decision and after an intermediary ruling upholding the decision, the GFSC in October 2008 issued a judgment that PCs were not photocopiers within the meaning of the German copyright law that was in effect until December 31, 2007 and, therefore, not subject to the levies on photocopiers established by that law. VG Wort filed a claim with the GCC challenging that ruling. In January 2011, as in the HP case above, the GCC revoked the GFSC decision and referred the case back to the GFSC to determine if the ruling gave due credit to the copyright owner's property rights under the German Constitution and whether the GFSC should have referred the case to the European Court of Justice. Dell believes that the GFSC can decide to refer the case to the ECJ, confirm its prior decision, or conclude that PCs are subject to levies under German law. Dell has not accrued any liability in this matter, as Dell does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim.

In a separate matter, on December 29, 2005, Zentralstelle Für private Überspielungrechte (“ZPÜ”), a joint association of various German collecting societies, instituted arbitration proceedings against Dell's German subsidiary before the Board of Arbitration at the German Patent and Trademark Office in Munich, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the German Regional Court in Munich on February 21, 2008, seeking levies to be paid on each PC sold by Dell in Germany through the end of calendar year 2007. On December 23, 2009, ZPÜ and the German industry association, BCH, reached a settlement regarding audio-video copyright levy litigation (with levies ranging from €3.15 to €13.65 per unit). Dell joined this settlement on February 23, 2010 and has paid the amounts due thereunder. However, because the settlement agreement expired on December 31, 2010, the amount of levies payable after calendar year 2010, as well as Dell's ability to recover such amounts through increased prices, remain uncertain.

Additionally, there are proceedings in Spain to which Dell is not a party, but that could impact Dell's obligation to collect and remit levies across the EU. In March 2006, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (“SGAE”), a Spanish collecting society, sued Padawan SL ("Padawan"), a company unaffiliated with Dell, in the Commercial Court number four of Barcelona in Spain claiming that Padawan owed levies on the CD-Rs, CD-RWs, DVD-Rs, and MP3 players sold by Padawan. In June 2007, the trial court upheld SGAE's claim and ordered Padawan to pay specified levies. Padawan appealed the decision to the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, which stayed the proceedings in order to refer the case to the ECJ. The ECJ considered the interpretation of the term “fair compensation” under the European Copyright Directive (“Directive”). On October 21, 2010, the ECJ issued its decision and outlined how fair compensation should be considered under the Directive by the EU member states. The ECJ stated that fair compensation must be calculated based on the harm caused to the authors of protected works by private copying. The ECJ also stated that the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to devices not made available to private users and clearly reserved for uses other than private copying is incompatible with the Directive. The matter was referred back to the Spanish court to determine whether the Spanish copyright levy scheme is compatible with the Directive based on the guidance provided by the ECJ. And in March 2011, the Appeals Court of Barcelona decided in the industry's favor, noting that the indiscriminate payment of copyright levies does not comply with EU law. The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Spain. It is unclear at this time what the effect of this decision will be on copyright levies in Spain and the other EU member states. Dell continues to collect and remit levies in Spain and other EU countries where it has determined that based on local law it is probable that Dell has an obligation.

The ultimate resolution of these matters and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, including the number of units potentially affected, the amount of levies imposed, and the ability of Dell to recover such amounts remains uncertain at this time. Should the courts determine there is liability for previous units shipped beyond what Dell has collected or accrued, Dell would be liable for such incremental amounts. Recovery would only be possible on future collections related to future shipments.

Sharp Corporation v Dell Inc. - Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) filed a suit against Dell in October 2008 for trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution in the U.S. District Court in the State of New Jersey. Sharp alleges that it is the owner of the “SHARP” mark and that this mark and related marks are used in connection with Sharp's sale of a wide variety of electrical and consumer electronic products. Sharp alleges that Dell has infringed the “SHARP” mark by using the “UltraSharp” and “Dell UltraSharp” marks to promote, advertise and sell computer monitors and notebook computers, from 2002 to the present. Sharp alleges that Dell's use of “UltraSharp” has and will continue to cause actual consumer confusion regarding the source of “UltraSharp.” In addition, Sharp has asserted a claim for dilution of its SHARP marks on the alleged ground that Dell's use of DELL UltraSharp and UltraSharp has weakened the distinctive value of its marks. Sharp seeks damages measured by Dell's profits made from the sale of DELL UltraSharp products, treble damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Sharp also seeks a permanent injunction precluding the use of Dell's allegedly infringing “UltraSharp” mark. Dell disputes the claims and is vigorously defending the case. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for June 2011. The ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, remains uncertain at this time.

Chad Brazil and Steven Seick v Dell Inc. - Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action suit against Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs allege that Dell advertised discounts on its products from false “regular” prices, in violation of California law. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits from the alleged false advertising, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In December 2010, the District Court certified a class consisting of all California residents who had purchased certain products advertised with a former sales price on the consumer segment of Dell's website during an approximately four year period between March 2003 and June 2007. During the first quarter of Fiscal 2012, the plaintiffs and Dell reached a classwide settlement in principle regarding the dispute on terms that are not material to the company, however, the settlement is still subject to submission and approval by the District Court.

Convolve Inc. v Dell Inc. - Convolve, Inc. sued Dell, Western Digital Corporation (“Western Digital”), Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., and Hitachi Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi”) on June 18, 2008 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging that the defendants infringe United States Patent No. 4,916,635 (entitled “Shaping Command Inputs to Minimize Unwanted Dynamics”) and United States Patent No. 6,314,473 (entitled “System for Removing Selected Unwanted Frequencies in Accordance with Altered Settings in a User Interface of a Data Storage Device”). Western Digital and Hitachi are hard drive suppliers of Dell. This case is scheduled to go to trial in July 2011. Plaintiff seeks damages for each product with an allegedly infringing hard drive sold by Dell, plus exemplary damages for allegedly willful infringement. Dell disputes the plaintiff's damages calculations and also disputes the validity of the patents. Dell further disputes that it infringes the patents, and will assert all of these defenses at trial. The ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to Dell, if any, remain uncertain at this time.

Other Litigation - The various legal proceedings in which Dell is involved include commercial litigation and a variety of patent suits. In some of these cases, Dell is the sole defendant. More often, particularly in the patent suits, Dell is one of a number of defendants in the electronics and technology industries. Dell is actively defending a number of patent infringement suits, and several pending claims are in various stages of evaluations. While the number of patent cases has grown over time, Dell does not currently anticipate that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on Dell's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

While Dell does not expect that the ultimate outcomes in these proceedings or matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, the results and timing of the ultimate resolutions of these various proceedings and matters are inherently unpredictable. Whether the outcome of any claim, suit, assessment, investigation, or legal proceeding, individually or collectively, could have a material adverse effect on Dell's business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows will depend on a number of variables, including the nature, timing, and amount of any associated expenses, amounts paid in settlement, damages or other remedies or consequences.