Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Legal Proceedings	Apr. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 8—Legal Proceedings On October 12, 2011, the Company entered into a binding term sheet with T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) to settle litigation related to a complaint filed by T-Mobile on May 15, 2009, against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. T-Mobile alleged that the Company breached a wholesale supply agreement entered into between T-Mobile and the Company in February 2005, as amended, by failing to purchase at least $75 million in services from T-Mobile. T-Mobile sought approximately $55 million for alleged damages and interest. In consideration of the settlement of all disputes between the parties, on October 13, 2011, the Company paid T-Mobile $10 million. The Company incurred legal fees of $1.0 million in fiscal 2012 in connection with this matter. The Company recorded a loss of $11.0 million in the nine months ended April 30, 2012 for this settlement, which is included in “Other operating (losses) gains, net” in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. On June 4, 2012, the parties executed a formal settlement agreement containing standard mutual releases and covenants not to sue, and on June 6, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the complaint with the Court. On August 5, 2011, the Administrative Court in Gothenburg, Sweden rejected the Company’s appeal and upheld the Swedish Tax Agency’s imposition of a value added tax (“VAT”) assessment including penalties and interest of approximately SEK 147 million ($21.8 million at April 30, 2012) for the period from January 2004 through June 2008. The Company had appealed this decision to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg. On March 27, 2012 the Swedish Tax Agency retracted from its position and filed a pleading with the Administrative Court of Appeal changing its position and stating that it supported the Company’s appeal. On May 22, 2012, the Company was notified that the Administrative Court of Appeal granted the Company’s appeal and thus revoked the Swedish Tax Agency’s original decision and the County Administrative Court’s judgment to impose VAT and penalties. The judgment clarifies that the Administrative Court of Appeal did not find any reason to deviate from the common view of the parties. The judgment gains legal force if it is not appealed by the Swedish Tax Agency on or before July 16, 2012. The Company has determined that a loss from the assessment is not probable and accordingly has not recorded an accrual for this matter. On February 15, 2011, a jury in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas awarded Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) $9.1 million in damages from the Company in an action alleging infringement of two patents related to the activation of phone and gift cards (incorporating bank identification numbers approved by the American Banking Association for use in a banking network) over a point-of-sale terminal. The final judgment issued in August 2011 awarded Alexsam an aggregate of $10.1 million including damages and interest. Post-judgment interest continues to accrue at 0.11% on the $10.1 million awarded in the final judgment. The Company has mostly completed a design-around to avoid infringement of the Alexsam patents and does not expect that this decision will have a material impact on its future business operations. On October 28, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal and on November 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a notice of cross-appeal. The Company filed its opening brief on February 8, 2012. Alexsam’s cross-appeal opening and response brief was filed on May 21, 2012. The Company’s response and reply brief is due by July 2, 2012 and Alexsam’s cross-appeal reply brief is due by July 16, 2012. A decision on the appeal is expected by early 2013. On September 1, 2011, Alexsam filed a new action seeking royalties for the products and systems previously found to infringe its patents to the extent they have been used since January 1, 2011. The Court set this action for trial on January 10, 2013. At that time the Court will determine the additional royalties owed to Alexsam. These additional royalties will only be due and payable if the original judgment is affirmed on appeal. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had $10.0 million accrued for this matter. As of April 30, 2012, the Company’s reasonably possible liability related to Alexsam’s claims above the amount that has been accrued range from $0 to $3 million. The upper limit of the range of reasonably possible liability may increase to the extent that the products and systems previously found to infringe Alexsam’s patents continue to be used. On August 27, 2003, Aerotel, Ltd., Aerotel U.S.A., and Aerotel U.S.A., LLC (collectively “Aerotel”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, seeking damages for alleged infringement of a patent. On August 17, 2007, the parties reached a settlement (the “2007 Settlement”) and all claims and counterclaims were dismissed. The 2007 Settlement provided for a payment of $15 million in cash to Aerotel, which the Company paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2008. The 2007 Settlement also required the Company to make available to Aerotel calling cards or PINS over time with potential termination costs of up to $15 million, subject to certain other conditions. In connection with the 2007 Settlement, the Company accrued an expense of $24 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007. On May 13, 2008, Aerotel, Ltd. filed a complaint against the Company in the United Stated District Court, Southern District of New York related to a dispute concerning the 2007 Settlement alleging breach of contract, anticipatory breach, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On June 29, 2009, the parties finalized a Settlement Agreement (the “2009 Settlement Agreement”), the terms of which were subject to a confidentiality provision and the complaint was dismissed. In connection with this matter, the Company accrued an additional expense of $6 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. Since that time, the parties had been working to implement the 2009 Settlement Agreement. On October 27, 2010, Aerotel, Ltd. served the Company with a Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim referring disputes related to the 2009 Settlement Agreement to the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution. The Statement of Claim alleges breach of contract, anticipatory breach, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, common law fraud, negligence and deceptive business practices and seeks damages of at least $25 million and attorneys’ fees. On November 26, 2010, the Company served its Notice of Defense and Counterclaim. Fact discovery is complete and on February 28, 2012, the parties exchanged expert reports. The arbitration is scheduled to begin on June 11, 2012. The Company intends to vigorously defend the matter in the upcoming arbitration. On July 2, 2009, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and nine of its affiliates (collectively “Southwestern Bell”), each of which is a local exchange carrier, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking an accounting as well as declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief from the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to pay “switched access service” charges for calls made by consumers using the Company’s prepaid calling cards. The complaint alleges causes of action for (i) violation of federal tariffs, (ii) violation of state tariffs, and (iii) unjust enrichment. On November 18, 2011, the parties each submitted a motion for summary judgment with opposition and reply briefs filed in December 2011. On March 9, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the Company’s motion and granting Southwestern Bell’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, but provided that the parties will proceed to trial to determine the precise amount of damages owed. Although the parties continue to engage in settlement discussions, the Company is evaluating its options going forward, including its options on appeal. A trial on damages was scheduled for June 18, 2012 but it has been postponed. The Company is the exclusive licensee of a patent related to a method and process used in prepaid calling cards that was invented by Shmuel Fromer. The Company has been attempting to enforce this patent in Germany, and had succeeded, prevailing in infringement cases against certain calling card providers, including Lycatel (Ireland) Limited and Lycatel Services Limited, and Mox Telecom AG. On February 21, 2012, a nullity hearing (effectively judging the validity of the patent) with respect to the patent, took place before the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe, between Lycatel Services Limited as claimant, Mox Telecom AG as intervenor on the side of claimant, and Mr. Fromer, as defendant. During this hearing, the court nullified claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the patent. The court also ordered the defendant to pay costs and fees in respect of all of the nullity proceedings involving Lycatel and Mox. Except for the amount of fees and costs which may be claimed against the Company that are based on applicable statutes, the outcome of this matter is uncertain, and, as such, the Company is not able to make an assessment of the final result and its impact on the Company. As of April 30, 2012, the Company had an aggregate of $18.5 million accrued for the Aerotel, Southwestern Bell and Lycatel/Mox matters. As of April 30, 2012, the Company’s reasonably possible liability above the aggregate amount that had been accrued for these matters was $14.0 million. On May 5, 2004, the Company filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking injunctive relief and damages against Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., Tyco Telecommunications (US) Inc. (f/k/a TyCom (US) Inc.), Tyco International, Ltd., Tyco International (US) Inc., and TyCom Ltd. (collectively “Tyco”). The Company alleged that Tyco breached a settlement agreement that it had entered into with the Company to resolve certain disputes and civil actions among the parties. The Company alleged that Tyco did not provide the Company, as required under the settlement agreement, free of charge and for the Company’s exclusive use, a 15-year indefeasible right to use four Wavelengths in Ring Configuration (as defined in the settlement agreement) (“Wavelengths”) on a global undersea fiber optic network that Tyco was deploying at that time. In June 2004, Tyco asserted several counterclaims against the Company, alleging that the Company breached the settlement agreement and is liable for damages for allegedly refusing to accept Tyco’s offer regarding the Wavelengths referenced in the settlement agreement and for making a public statement that Tyco failed to provide the Company with the use of its Wavelengths. On August 19, 2008, the Appellate Division of the State of New York, First Department, granted summary judgment in favor of Tyco dismissing the complaint and remanded the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. On October 22, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals issued an Order denying the Company’s appeal and affirming the Appellate Division’s order. On or about November 17, 2009, the Company demanded that Tyco comply with its obligations under the settlement agreement. After further discussions and meetings between the parties regarding Tyco’s obligations under the settlement agreement, including its obligation to provide the use of the Wavelengths for fifteen years in a manner fully consistent with that described in the settlement agreement, the Company filed a complaint on November 24, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Tyco based upon the failure to comply with the obligations under the settlement agreement, to negotiate the terms of an indefeasible right to use the Wavelengths in good faith, and to provide the Company with the Wavelengths. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and breach of duty to negotiate in good faith. On January 6, 2011, Tyco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. On July 22, 2011, the Company filed a notice of appeal. The Company’s filed its opening brief on November 7, 2011. Tyco filed its opposition on February 10, 2012 and the Company filed its reply on March 9, 2012. Oral argument was held on April 2, 2012 and we await the Court’s decision. On April 1, 2004, D. Michael Jewett, a former employee with whom the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement in November 2010, sent a copy of the complaint he had filed against the Company to the United States Attorney’s Office. In the complaint, Jewett had alleged, among other things, that improper payments were made to foreign officials in connection with an IDT Telecom contract. As a result, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the SEC and the United States Attorney in Newark, New Jersey conducted an investigation of this matter. The Company and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors initiated independent investigations, by outside counsel, regarding certain of the matters raised in the Jewett complaint and in these investigations. Neither the Company’s nor the Audit Committee’s investigations have found any evidence that the Company made any such improper payments to foreign officials. The Company continues to cooperate with these investigations, which the SEC and DOJ have confirmed are still ongoing. In January 2012, the Company filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Stalker Software, Inc. (d/b/a CommuniGate Systems, Inc.), ooVoo, LLC, and Vivox, Inc. claiming infringement of a number of its key patents. The Company seeks both damages and injunctive relief from the defendants. On April 10, 2012, Stalker Software, Inc. filed its answer, and on May 11, 2012, ooVoo, LLC filed its answer. Vivox, Inc.’s answer is due by June 18, 2012. In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, none of the other legal proceedings to which the Company is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.