There have been no significant changes in our significant accounting policies for the three month period ended July 29, 2011, as compared to the significant accounting policies described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2011.

Revenue Recognition

In October 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) amended the accounting standards for revenue recognition to exclude tangible products containing software components and non-software components that function together to deliver the tangible product's essential functionality from the scope of the software revenue recognition guidance. Concurrently, the FASB also amended the accounting standards for multiple deliverable revenue arrangements to:

•

provide updated guidance on whether multiple deliverables exist, how the deliverables in an arrangement should be separated, and how the arrangement consideration should be allocated among its elements;

•

require an entity to allocate revenue in an arrangement that has separate units of accounting using best estimated selling prices (BESP) of deliverables if a vendor does not have vendor-specific objective evidence (VSOE) of fair value or third-party evidence of selling price (TPE); and

•

eliminate the use of the residual method and require an entity to allocate revenue using the relative selling price method to the separate units of accounting.

We elected to early adopt these standards in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, and the standards were applied retrospectively from the beginning of fiscal 2011 for new and materially modified revenue arrangements originating after April 30, 2010. Previously reported quarterly results have been adjusted to reflect the adoption of these standards and differ from the originally reported results.

The majority of our products are hardware systems containing software components that function together to provide the essential functionality of the product. Therefore, our hardware systems and software components essential to the functionality of the hardware systems are considered non-software deliverables and therefore are not subject to industry-specific software revenue recognition guidance.

Our product revenue also includes revenue from the sale of non-essential software products. Non-essential software products may operate on our hardware systems, but are not considered essential to the functionality of the hardware. Non-essential software sales generally include a perpetual license to our software. Non-essential software sales continue to be subject to the industry-specific software revenue recognition guidance. For arrangements within the scope of the new guidance, a deliverable constitutes a separate unit of accounting when it has standalone value and there are no customer negotiated refunds or return rights for the delivered elements.

For transactions entered into or materially modified after April 30, 2010, we recognize revenue in accordance with the new accounting standards when applicable. Certain arrangements with multiple deliverables may continue to have software deliverables that are subject to the existing software revenue recognition guidance along with non-software deliverables that are subject to the new standards. The revenue for these multiple element arrangements is allocated to the software deliverables and the non-software deliverables as a group based on the relative selling prices of all of the deliverables in the arrangement using the selling price hierarchy set forth in the standards.

For our non-software deliverables, we recognize revenue based on the new standards and allocate the arrangement consideration based on the relative selling price of the deliverables. For our non-software deliverables, we use BESP as our selling price. For our software entitlements and support services, we generally use VSOE as our selling price. When we are unable to establish selling price using VSOE for our software entitlements and support services, we use BESP in our allocation of arrangement consideration.

VSOE of fair value for elements of an arrangement is based upon the normal pricing and discounting practices for those services when sold separately. In determining VSOE, we require that a substantial majority of the selling prices for an element fall within a reasonably narrow pricing range, generally evidenced by a substantial majority of such historical stand-alone transactions falling within a reasonably narrow range. In addition, we consider major service type, customer classifications, and other variables in determining VSOE.

When VSOE cannot be established, the Company attempts to establish selling price of each element based on TPE. TPE is determined based on competitor prices for similar deliverables when sold separately. Generally, our go-to-market strategy differs from that of our peers and our offerings contain a significant level of differentiation such that the comparable pricing of products with similar functionality cannot be obtained. Furthermore, we are unable to reliably determine what similar competitor products' selling prices are on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, the Company is typically not able to determine TPE for our products or services.

When we are unable to establish selling price of our non-software deliverables using VSOE or TPE, we use our BESP in our allocation of arrangement consideration. The objective of BESP is to determine the price at which we would transact a sale if the product or service were sold on a stand-alone basis. BESP is determined for a product or service by considering multiple factors including, but not limited to, cost of products, gross margin objectives, historical pricing practices, customer classes and distribution channels. In determining BESP, we require that the majority of the selling prices fall within a reasonable pricing range, generally evidenced by a majority of such historical transactions falling within a reasonable range.

We regularly review VSOE, TPE, and BESP and maintain internal controls over the establishment and updates of these estimates.

For sales of software deliverables after April 30, 2010 and for all transactions entered into prior to the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, we recognize revenue based on software revenue recognition guidance. Under the software revenue recognition guidance, we use the residual method to recognize revenue when a multiple element arrangement includes one or more elements to be delivered at a future date and VSOE of fair value of all undelivered elements exists. In the majority of our contracts, the only element that remains undelivered at the time of delivery of the product is software entitlements and maintenance (SEM) and/or service. Under the residual method, the fair value of the undelivered elements is deferred and the remaining portion of the contract fee is recognized as product revenue. If evidence of the fair value of one or more undelivered elements does not exist, all revenue is generally deferred until the earlier of when delivery of those elements occurs or when fair value can be established. In instances where the only undelivered element without fair value is SEM, the entire arrangement is recognized ratably over the maintenance period.

Recent Accounting Standards Not Yet Effective

In June 2011, the FASB issued new guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income. Specifically, the new guidance requires an entity to present components of net income and other comprehensive income in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive statements. The new guidance eliminates the current option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of stockholders' equity. While the new guidance changes the presentation of comprehensive income, there are no changes to the components that are recognized in net income or other comprehensive income under current accounting guidance. This new guidance is effective for us beginning in our first quarter of fiscal 2013 and is required to be applied retrospectively. There will be no impact to the Company's results as the guidance relates only to financial statement presentation.

In May 2011, the FASB issued new guidance for fair value measurements to provide a consistent definition of fair value and ensure that the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are similar between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. The guidance changes certain fair value measurement principles and enhances the disclosure requirements particularly for level 3 fair value measurements. The guidance is effective for us prospectively beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, and we are currently evaluating the impact of adoption on our financial statements.