Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of our breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by us. In addition, our bylaws contain indemnification obligations to our directors, officers, employees and agents, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and certain of our officers to give such directors and officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope of the indemnification set forth in our bylaws and to provide additional procedural protections. We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and officers. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, we have not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and we have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. In connection with the sale of our former information management business (“Veritas”), we assigned several leases to Veritas Technologies LLC or its related subsidiaries. As a condition to consenting to the assignments, certain lessors required us to agree to indemnify the lessor under the applicable lease with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of Veritas Technologies LLC or its related subsidiaries’ breach of payment obligations under the terms of the lease. As with our other indemnification obligations discussed above and in general, it is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. As with our other indemnification obligations, such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses and to date, generally under our real estate obligations, we have not incurred material costs as a result of such obligations under our leases and have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. We provide limited product warranties and the majority of our software license agreements contain provisions that indemnify licensees of our software from damages and costs resulting from claims alleging that our software infringes on the intellectual property rights of a third party. Historically, payments made under these provisions have been immaterial. We monitor the conditions that are subject to indemnification to identify if a loss has occurred. Litigation contingencies GSA During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, we were advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that the government is investigating our compliance with certain provisions of our U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24, 2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin, accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices. As reported on the GSA’s publicly-available database, our total sales under the GSA Schedule contract were approximately $222 million from the period beginning January 2007 and ending September 2012. We have fully cooperated with the government throughout its investigation and in January 2014, representatives of the government indicated that their initial analysis of our actual damages exposure from direct government sales under the GSA schedule was approximately $145 million; since the initial meeting, the government’s analysis of our potential damages exposure relating to direct sales has increased. The government has also indicated they are going to pursue claims for certain sales to California, Florida, and New York as well as sales to the federal government through reseller GSA Schedule contracts, which could significantly increase our potential damages exposure. In 2012, a sealed civil lawsuit was filed against Symantec related to compliance with the GSA Schedule contract and contracts with California, Florida, and New York. On July 18, 2014, the Court-imposed seal expired, and the government intervened in the lawsuit. On September 16, 2014, the states of California and Florida intervened in the lawsuit, and the state of New York notified the Court that it would not intervene. On October 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an amended complaint, which did not state a specific damages amount. On October 17, 2014, California and Florida combined their claims with those of the DOJ and the relator on behalf of New York in an Omnibus Complaint, and a First Amended Omnibus Complaint was filed on October 8, 2015; the state claims also do not state specific damages amounts. It is possible that the litigation could lead to claims or findings of violations of the False Claims Act, and could be material to our results of operations and cash flows for any period. Resolution of False Claims Act investigations can ultimately result in the payment of somewhere between one and three times the actual damages proven by the government, plus civil penalties in some cases, depending upon a number of factors. Our current estimate of the low end of the range of the probable estimated loss from this matter is $25 million, which we have accrued. This amount contemplates estimated losses from both the investigation of compliance with the terms of the GSA Schedule contract as well as possible violations of the False Claims Act. There is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter, however, we are currently unable to determine the high end of the range of estimated losses resulting from this matter. EDS & NDI On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service (“EDS”) and Norton Download Insurance (“NDI”). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which we would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by us. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Eighth Circuit”), challenging the Court’s approval of the settlement, and the decision granting approval was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on April 28, 2017. The time for the objectors to appeal the Eighth Circuit’s ruling has now expired without any appeal being filed. This matter is therefore now closed. Finjan On August 28, 2013, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) filed a complaint against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain Blue Coat products infringe six of Finjan’s U.S. patents. On August 4, 2015, a jury returned a verdict that certain Blue Coat products infringe five of the Finjan patents-in-suit and awarded Finjan lump-sum damages of $40 million. On November 20, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Finjan on the jury verdict and certain non-jury legal issues. On July 28, 2016, in its ruling on post-trial motions the trial court denied Blue Coat’s motions seeking a new trial or judgment as a matter of law and denied Finjan’s request for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. In August 2016, we completed our acquisition of Blue Coat. We intend to vigorously contest the judgment and have filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Our current best estimated loss and related interest with respect to the jury verdict is $40 million, which was accrued by Blue Coat and assumed by us as a part of the acquisition of Blue Coat. Other We are involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings that are incidental to our business. Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in one or more of the cases, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or losses from each of these cases. The final resolution of these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnifications

In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of our breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by us. In addition, our bylaws contain indemnification obligations to our directors, officers, employees and agents, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and certain of our officers to give such directors and officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope of the indemnification set forth in our bylaws and to provide additional procedural protections. We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and officers. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. Historically, we have not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements and we have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

In connection with the sale of our former information management business (“Veritas”), we assigned several leases to Veritas Technologies LLC or its related subsidiaries. As a condition to consenting to the assignments, certain lessors required us to agree to indemnify the lessor under the applicable lease with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of Veritas Technologies LLC or its related subsidiaries’ breach of payment obligations under the terms of the lease. As with our other indemnification obligations discussed above and in general, it is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. As with our other indemnification obligations, such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses and to date, generally under our real estate obligations, we have not incurred material costs as a result of such obligations under our leases and have not accrued any liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

We provide limited product warranties and the majority of our software license agreements contain provisions that indemnify licensees of our software from damages and costs resulting from claims alleging that our software infringes on the intellectual property rights of a third party. Historically, payments made under these provisions have been immaterial. We monitor the conditions that are subject to indemnification to identify if a loss has occurred.

Litigation contingencies

GSA

During the first quarter of fiscal 2013, we were advised by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Civil Division and the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia that the government is investigating our compliance with certain provisions of our U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS-35F-0240T effective January 24, 2007, including provisions relating to pricing, country of origin, accessibility, and the disclosure of commercial sales practices.

As reported on the GSA’s publicly-available database, our total sales under the GSA Schedule contract were approximately $222 million from the period beginning January 2007 and ending September 2012. We have fully cooperated with the government throughout its investigation and in January 2014, representatives of the government indicated that their initial analysis of our actual damages exposure from direct government sales under the GSA schedule was approximately $145 million; since the initial meeting, the government’s analysis of our potential damages exposure relating to direct sales has increased. The government has also indicated they are going to pursue claims for certain sales to California, Florida, and New York as well as sales to the federal government through reseller GSA Schedule contracts, which could significantly increase our potential damages exposure.

In 2012, a sealed civil lawsuit was filed against Symantec related to compliance with the GSA Schedule contract and contracts with California, Florida, and New York. On July 18, 2014, the Court-imposed seal expired, and the government intervened in the lawsuit. On September 16, 2014, the states of California and Florida intervened in the lawsuit, and the state of New York notified the Court that it would not intervene. On October 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an amended complaint, which did not state a specific damages amount. On October 17, 2014, California and Florida combined their claims with those of the DOJ and the relator on behalf of New York in an Omnibus Complaint, and a First Amended Omnibus Complaint was filed on October 8, 2015; the state claims also do not state specific damages amounts.

It is possible that the litigation could lead to claims or findings of violations of the False Claims Act, and could be material to our results of operations and cash flows for any period. Resolution of False Claims Act investigations can ultimately result in the payment of somewhere between one and three times the actual damages proven by the government, plus civil penalties in some cases, depending upon a number of factors. Our current estimate of the low end of the range of the probable estimated loss from this matter is $25 million, which we have accrued. This amount contemplates estimated losses from both the investigation of compliance with the terms of the GSA Schedule contract as well as possible violations of the False Claims Act. There is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter, however, we are currently unable to determine the high end of the range of estimated losses resulting from this matter.

EDS & NDI

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service (“EDS”) and Norton Download Insurance (“NDI”). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which we would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by us. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Eighth Circuit”), challenging the Court’s approval of the settlement, and the decision granting approval was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on April 28, 2017. The time for the objectors to appeal the Eighth Circuit’s ruling has now expired without any appeal being filed. This matter is therefore now closed.

Finjan

On August 28, 2013, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) filed a complaint against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain Blue Coat products infringe six of Finjan’s U.S. patents. On August 4, 2015, a jury returned a verdict that certain Blue Coat products infringe five of the Finjan patents-in-suit and awarded Finjan lump-sum damages of $40 million. On November 20, 2015, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Finjan on the jury verdict and certain non-jury legal issues. On July 28, 2016, in its ruling on post-trial motions the trial court denied Blue Coat’s motions seeking a new trial or judgment as a matter of law and denied Finjan’s request for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. In August 2016, we completed our acquisition of Blue Coat. We intend to vigorously contest the judgment and have filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Our current best estimated loss and related interest with respect to the jury verdict is $40 million, which was accrued by Blue Coat and assumed by us as a part of the acquisition of Blue Coat.

Other

We are involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings that are incidental to our business. Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in one or more of the cases, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or losses from each of these cases. The final resolution of these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.