Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the “Moreno Complaint”). On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the “Lawi Complaint”). Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company’s patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company’s technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as lead plaintiff, which are pending, so that defendants have not filed any responsive pleadings to the complaints. The Company believes the allegations in the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint are without merit, and intends to defend the litigation, vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation. On February 26, 2015, a complaint for patent infringement was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Richard Baker, an individual residing in Australia, against Microsoft, Nintendo, Majesco Sub, and a number of other game publisher defendants. The complaint alleged that the Zumba Fitness Kinect game infringed plaintiff’s patents in motion tracking technology. The plaintiff is representing himself pro se in the litigation and is seeking monetary damages in the amount of $1.3 million. The case was subsequently transferred to the Western District of Washington. On June 16, 2017, final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants finding that the accused products did not literally infringe the asserted patent and that plaintiff was barred from pursing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Washington. On May 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc by the Court of Appeals. The petition for rehearing was denied on June 8, 2018. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. That petition was placed on the docket September 4, 2018 as No. 18-276 and is currently pending. On June 23, 2017, as part of a purchase agreement, liabilities and claims relating to this litigation were assumed by Zift. The Company cannot be certain about the outcome of the appeal, or whether litigation regarding the assumption of liabilities by Zift may occur. In addition to the items above, the Company at times may be a party to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business. We record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company has not recorded a liability with respect to the matter above. While the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to the legal matter pending and intends to vigorously defend the matter above, given the uncertainty surrounding litigation and our inability to assess the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome, it is possible that the resolution of the matter could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations. Commitments The Company leases office space in Hazlet, New Jersey at a cost of approximately $1,100 per month under a lease agreement that expires on March 31, 2019. The Company also leased space in Salt Lake City, Utah at a cost of approximately $24,000 per month under a lease agreement that expired on March 31, 2018. The Company will continue to lease space in Salt Lake City, Utah at a cost of approximately $12,400 per month under a lease agreement that expires on September 30, 2018. The Company will exit the property at the termination of the lease. On December 27, 2017, the Company signed a five-year lease with one five-year option to renew on approximately 178,528 rentable square feet in Salt Lake City, Utah. The base rent for the first year of the lease is $1,178,285 and escalates at the rate of 3% per annum thereafter. On July 11, 2018, the Company signed a two-year lease with one five-year option to renew on approximately 44,695 rentable square feet in Salt Lake City, Utah. The base rent, including building maintenance fees is $478,237 per annum. As of July 31, 2018, this lease had not commenced and is expected to commence during the fiscal quarter ending October 31, 2018. Rent expense for the three months ended July 31, 2018 and 2017 was approximately $356,000 and $87,000, respectively. Rent expense for the nine months ended July 31, 2018 and 2017 was approximately $994,000 and $147,000, respectively. The Company has entered into employment agreements with key executives that contain severance terms and change of control provisions.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the “Moreno Complaint”). On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the “Lawi Complaint”). Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company’s patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company’s technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as lead plaintiff, which are pending, so that defendants have not filed any responsive pleadings to the complaints. The Company believes the allegations in the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint are without merit, and intends to defend the litigation, vigorously. At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.

On February 26, 2015, a complaint for patent infringement was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Richard Baker, an individual residing in Australia, against Microsoft, Nintendo, Majesco Sub, and a number of other game publisher defendants. The complaint alleged that the Zumba Fitness Kinect game infringed plaintiff’s patents in motion tracking technology. The plaintiff is representing himself pro se in the litigation and is seeking monetary damages in the amount of $1.3 million. The case was subsequently transferred to the Western District of Washington. On June 16, 2017, final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants finding that the accused products did not literally infringe the asserted patent and that plaintiff was barred from pursing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Washington. On May 7, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc by the Court of Appeals. The petition for rehearing was denied on June 8, 2018. The plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. That petition was placed on the docket September 4, 2018 as No. 18-276 and is currently pending. On June 23, 2017, as part of a purchase agreement, liabilities and claims relating to this litigation were assumed by Zift. The Company cannot be certain about the outcome of the appeal, or whether litigation regarding the assumption of liabilities by Zift may occur.

In addition to the items above, the Company at times may be a party to claims and suits in the ordinary course of business. We record a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company has not recorded a liability with respect to the matter above. While the Company believes that it has valid defenses with respect to the legal matter pending and intends to vigorously defend the matter above, given the uncertainty surrounding litigation and our inability to assess the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome, it is possible that the resolution of the matter could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

Commitments

The Company leases office space in Hazlet, New Jersey at a cost of approximately $1,100 per month under a lease agreement that expires on March 31, 2019.

The Company also leased space in Salt Lake City, Utah at a cost of approximately $24,000 per month under a lease agreement that expired on March 31, 2018. The Company will continue to lease space in Salt Lake City, Utah at a cost of approximately $12,400 per month under a lease agreement that expires on September 30, 2018. The Company will exit the property at the termination of the lease.

On December 27, 2017, the Company signed a five-year lease with one five-year option to renew on approximately 178,528 rentable square feet in Salt Lake City, Utah. The base rent for the first year of the lease is $1,178,285 and escalates at the rate of 3% per annum thereafter.

On July 11, 2018, the Company signed a two-year lease with one five-year option to renew on approximately 44,695 rentable square feet in Salt Lake City, Utah. The base rent, including building maintenance fees is $478,237 per annum. As of July 31, 2018, this lease had not commenced and is expected to commence during the fiscal quarter ending October 31, 2018.

Rent expense for the three months ended July 31, 2018 and 2017 was approximately $356,000 and $87,000, respectively. Rent expense for the nine months ended July 31, 2018 and 2017 was approximately $994,000 and $147,000, respectively.

The Company has entered into employment agreements with key executives that contain severance terms and change of control provisions.