Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2014
Legal Proceedings and Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 9—Legal Proceedings On October 17, 2013, the Company and Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to fully compromise, settle and release any and all claims and counterclaims related to Alexsam’s action in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas 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. In a judgment issued in August 2011, Alexsam was awarded an aggregate of $10.1 million including damages and interest. The Settlement Agreement included a prospective royalty free license. On November 4, 2013, the Company paid Alexsam the settlement amount. In connection with the Aerotel, Ltd. (“Aerotel”) arbitration that was held in June 2012, on March 15, 2013, the arbitration panel issued its Final Award, and determined that Aerotel sustained damages, inclusive of interest at 9% per annum through March 15, 2013, in the total amount of approximately $5.4 million. On April 8, 2013, Aerotel filed a Petition for Judgment Vacating the Arbitration Awards in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York along with a Motion supporting its Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Awards. After briefing, on July 18, 2013, the Court confirmed the award, and as a result, in July 2013, the Company paid Aerotel $5.4 million, including interest. On August 14, 2013, Aerotel filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. After briefing, oral argument was held on May 21, 2014 and on June 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Company’s subsidiary Prepaid Cards BVBA was the exclusive licensee of a patent related to a method and process used in prepaid calling cards that was invented by Shmuel Fromer, which has now expired. The Company had 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 in connection with the infringement proceedings, which are based on applicable statutes (for which the Company has accrued $1.2 million at April 30, 2014), 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. The Company paid the court fees in connection with the infringement proceedings, and in March 2014, paid Lycatel for its own fees and costs. Mox’s costs and fees in connection with the infringement proceedings have not been determined. Upon enforcement of the judgments in these cases, the Company was required to transfer security deposits to the Court. While the security deposit for the Lycatel case was subsequently released to the Company, at this time the relevant courts have declined to release the security deposit for the Mox case. The Company is examining its options with respect to the release of this deposit. 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. After briefing was completed, oral argument was held on April 2, 2012. On December 27, 2012, the Appellate Division issued an opinion and order reversing the order of the Supreme Court which granted Tyco’s motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint. On April 30, 2013, Tyco filed a motion for reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the Company opposed. On February 8, 2013, Tyco filed an answer with a counterclaim. On May 21, 2013, the Appellate Division denied Tyco’s request for reargument but granted its request for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. On July 30, 2013, Tyco filed its opening brief, the Company filed its response brief on September 16, 2013, and Tyco filed its reply on October 11, 2013. Oral argument was held on April 29, 2014. On June 5, 2014, the Court issued its decision, and reversed the order of the Appellate Division, and ordered that the order of the Supreme Court should be reinstated. The Company is evaluating its options going forward. 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.

In connection with the Aerotel, Ltd. (“Aerotel”) arbitration that was held in June 2012, on March 15, 2013, the arbitration panel issued its Final Award, and determined that Aerotel sustained damages, inclusive of interest at 9% per annum through March 15, 2013, in the total amount of approximately $5.4 million. On April 8, 2013, Aerotel filed a Petition for Judgment Vacating the Arbitration Awards in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York along with a Motion supporting its Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Awards. After briefing, on July 18, 2013, the Court confirmed the award, and as a result, in July 2013, the Company paid Aerotel $5.4 million, including interest. On August 14, 2013, Aerotel filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. After briefing, oral argument was held on May 21, 2014 and on June 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.

The Company’s subsidiary Prepaid Cards BVBA was the exclusive licensee of a patent related to a method and process used in prepaid calling cards that was invented by Shmuel Fromer, which has now expired. The Company had 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 in connection with the infringement proceedings, which are based on applicable statutes (for which the Company has accrued $1.2 million at April 30, 2014), 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. The Company paid the court fees in connection with the infringement proceedings, and in March 2014, paid Lycatel for its own fees and costs. Mox’s costs and fees in connection with the infringement proceedings have not been determined. Upon enforcement of the judgments in these cases, the Company was required to transfer security deposits to the Court. While the security deposit for the Lycatel case was subsequently released to the Company, at this time the relevant courts have declined to release the security deposit for the Mox case. The Company is examining its options with respect to the release of this deposit.

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. After briefing was completed, oral argument was held on April 2, 2012. On December 27, 2012, the Appellate Division issued an opinion and order reversing the order of the Supreme Court which granted Tyco’s motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint. On April 30, 2013, Tyco filed a motion for reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the Company opposed. On February 8, 2013, Tyco filed an answer with a counterclaim. On May 21, 2013, the Appellate Division denied Tyco’s request for reargument but granted its request for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. On July 30, 2013, Tyco filed its opening brief, the Company filed its response brief on September 16, 2013, and Tyco filed its reply on October 11, 2013. Oral argument was held on April 29, 2014. On June 5, 2014, the Court issued its decision, and reversed the order of the Appellate Division, and ordered that the order of the Supreme Court should be reinstated. The Company is evaluating its options going forward.