Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. The Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $100.7 million of such inventory as of March 31, 2015. Legal Proceedings The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. Litigation Commonwealth of Kentucky On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies (“Subcontractor”), violated Kentucky’s wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the “Act”) on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC (“IFS”), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Office of Technology under the State’s Finance and Administration Cabinet (“COT”) as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on October 10, 2014. COT then filed a motion to dismiss COT as a defendant in this lawsuit and the court granted COT’s motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on the issue of whether the work performed by the defendants constitutes “construction” under the Act, which was denied on February 26, 2015. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome. ICMS Tax Assessment Matters The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014, by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,443,914 (or approximately US $1.5 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US $9.0 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. On or about October 6, 2014, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution, and in response to an appeal on the guarantee requirement, the appellant court further ruled on or about January 28, 2015 that no cash deposit (or guarantee) need be made by Enterasys. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall trends in results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from US $0 million to US $9.0 million, of which the Company believes US $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the acquisition date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition. Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.). On or about April 8, 2015, Company filed a lawsuit against Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.) (“Seller”) for breach of, and indemnification by Seller under, the purchase agreement, between Seller and Company, for Company’s purchase of Enterasys Networks, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Purchase Agreement”). The complaint alleges numerous claims for indemnification resulting from Seller’s violations of certain clauses in the Purchase Agreement and Seller’s failure to make accurate and proper disclosures as required by the Purchase Agreement. The Company was compelled to file this action to perfect and preserve the Company’s right to indemnification by Seller under the Purchase Agreement. Although the Company’s complaint has not quantified the amount being sought, the complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees in connection with each of the claims. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular or final outcome. Wetro LAN LLC On Mar 23, 2015, Wetro LAN LLC (Wetro), a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint against Extreme in the Eastern District of Texas asserting infringement of United States Patent No. 6,795,918 (the “ ‘918 Patent”). Wetro alleges that Extreme “makes, uses, provides, offers for sale, and sells their product entitled Extreme Networks- Altitude 4700 Series Access Points and similarly situated wireless routers” and thereby has infringed the 918 Patent. Wetro sued a number of other technology companies in January and February 2015 for the same patent. Indications at the USPTO are that the 918 Patent has expired, limiting potential damages including all future damages in the case. Wetro seeks monetary damages, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular or final outcome.

Commitments and Contingencies

Purchase Commitments

The Company currently has arrangements with contract manufacturers and suppliers for the manufacture of its products. The arrangements allow them to procure long lead-time component inventory based upon a rolling production forecast provided by the Company. The Company is obligated to the purchase of long lead-time component inventory that its contract manufacturer procures in accordance with the forecast, unless the Company gives notice of order cancellation outside of applicable component lead-times. The Company had non-cancelable commitments to purchase $100.7 million of such inventory as of March 31, 2015.

Legal Proceedings

The Company may from time to time be party to litigation arising in the course of its business, including, without limitation, allegations relating to commercial transactions, business relationships or intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources. Litigation in general and intellectual property and securities litigation in particular, can be expensive and disruptive to normal business operations. Moreover, the results of legal proceedings are difficult to predict.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company records accruals for certain of its outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, at least on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations or claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would result in a loss contingency to become both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not record a loss accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of any prior accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company would disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such estimate can be made, or disclose that an estimate cannot be made. The assessment whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Even if a loss is reasonably possible, the Company may not be able to estimate a range of possible loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large number of parties. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including the amount of any possible loss, fine or penalty. Accordingly, for current proceedings, except as noted below, the Company is currently unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss. However, an adverse resolution of one or more of such matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

Litigation

Commonwealth of Kentucky

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies (“Subcontractor”), violated Kentucky’s wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the “Act”) on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC (“IFS”), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Office of Technology under the State’s Finance and Administration Cabinet (“COT”) as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on October 10, 2014. COT then filed a motion to dismiss COT as a defendant in this lawsuit and the court granted COT’s motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication on the issue of whether the work performed by the defendants constitutes “construction” under the Act, which was denied on February 26, 2015. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular outcome.

ICMS Tax Assessment Matters

The State of Sao Paolo (Brazil) denied Enterasys Networks do Brazil Ltda. the use of certain credits derived from the State of Espirito Santo under the terms of the FUNDAP scheme for the tax years of 2002 through 2009. Enterasys’ application to resolve the ICMS Tax Assessments at the administrative level of the Sao Paolo Tax Department under the amnesty relief program (Reference No 3.056.963-1) was denied in March, 2014, by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration. The value of the ICMS tax credits that were disallowed by the Sao Paolo Tax Administration is approximately BR 3,443,914 (or approximately US $1.5 million), plus interest and penalties (that are currently estimated to be approximately US $9.0 million). On January 10, 2014, Enterasys filed a lawsuit to overturn or reduce the assessment, which lawsuit remains on-going. As part of this lawsuit, Enterasys made a request for a stay of execution, so that no tax foreclosure can be filed until a final ruling is made and no guarantee needs to be presented. On or about October 6, 2014, the preliminary injunction was granted with regard to the stay of execution, and in response to an appeal on the guarantee requirement, the appellant court further ruled on or about January 28, 2015 that no cash deposit (or guarantee) need be made by Enterasys.

Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular final outcome. Based on the currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of this audit will not have material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or overall trends in results of operations. The range of the potential total tax liability related to these matters is estimated to be from US $0 million to US $9.0 million, of which the Company believes US $4.3 million is the best estimate within the range and has recorded an accrual as of the acquisition date of Enterasys as such matter relates to the period before the acquisition.

Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.).

On or about April 8, 2015, Company filed a lawsuit against Unify U.S. Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Enterprise Networks Holdings, Inc.) (“Seller”) for breach of, and indemnification by Seller under, the purchase agreement, between Seller and Company, for Company’s purchase of Enterasys Networks, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Purchase Agreement”). The complaint alleges numerous claims for indemnification resulting from Seller’s violations of certain clauses in the Purchase Agreement and Seller’s failure to make accurate and proper disclosures as required by the Purchase Agreement. The Company was compelled to file this action to perfect and preserve the Company’s right to indemnification by Seller under the Purchase Agreement. Although the Company’s complaint has not quantified the amount being sought, the complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees in connection with each of the claims. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular or final outcome.

Wetro LAN LLC

On Mar 23, 2015, Wetro LAN LLC (Wetro), a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint against Extreme in the Eastern District of Texas asserting infringement of United States Patent No. 6,795,918 (the “ ‘918 Patent”). Wetro alleges that Extreme “makes, uses, provides, offers for sale, and sells their product entitled Extreme Networks- Altitude 4700 Series Access Points and similarly situated wireless routers” and thereby has infringed the 918 Patent. Wetro sued a number of other technology companies in January and February 2015 for the same patent. Indications at the USPTO are that the 918 Patent has expired, limiting potential damages including all future damages in the case. Wetro seeks monetary damages, although the complaint seeks no quantified amount. Given the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of a particular or final outcome.