Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation From time-to-time, j2 Global is involved in litigation and other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Many of these actions involve or are filed in response to patent actions filed by j2 Global against others. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries has increased as our business has expanded and j2 Global has grown. Any claims or regulatory actions against j2 Global, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant management time and result in diversion of significant operational resources. As part of the Company's continuing effort to prevent the unauthorized use of its intellectual property, j2 Global has brought claims against several companies for infringing its patents relating to online fax, voice and other messaging technologies, including, among others, OpenText Corporation and its Captaris business (“OpenText”), EasyLink Services International Corporation (“EasyLink”), RingCentral, Inc. (“RingCentral”), Vitelity Communications, Inc. (“Vitelity”), EC Data Systems, Inc. (“EC Data”) and Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. (“IGC”). On April 23, 2013, j2 Global reached a settlement of its litigation with OpenText, EasyLink, and EasyLink subsidiary Xpedite Systems, LLC. As part of this settlement, OpenText agreed to pay j2 Global $27,000,000.00 in exchange for a fully paid-up license to U.S. Patents Nos. 6,208,638 (the “'638 Patent”), 6,350,066 (the “'066 Patent”), 6,597,688 (the “'688 Patent”), 7,020,132 (the “'132 Patent”), and 6,020,980 (the “'980 Patent”) (collectively, the “j2 Global Licensed Patents”). OpenText also agreed to pay j2 Global a running royalty for a license to the j2 Global Licensed Patents for sales of fax software and services to individual and small office/home office customers, provided that such royalty exceeds a stipulated minimum amount. In connection with the settlement, OpenText granted j2 Global a fully paid-up license to United States Patent Nos. 5,872,640 and 7,804,823, together with all continuations, counterparts and reissues, for fax software and services sales. The following cases were dismissed with prejudice as part of this settlement: j2 Global v. Captaris, Inc.; j2 Global v. EasyLink; Xpedite Systems, LLC v. j2 Global; Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc. v. EasyLink; and j2 Global v. OpenText and EasyLink. On April 26, 2013, j2 Global reached a settlement of its litigation with RingCentral and the parties have dismissed all claims in the pending litigation with prejudice. The following cases were dismissed: j2 Global and one of its affiliates had filed suit against RingCentral in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District of California”), alleging infringement of the '638, '066, and '132 Patents and seeking a permanent injunction against continued infringement, a finding of willfulness, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and interest and costs. RingCentral had filed counterclaims for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,702,669 (the “'669 Patent”) and unfair competition in violation of California's Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. In connection with its counterclaims, RingCentral had sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '638, '066, and '132 Patents and damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs for the alleged infringement of the '669 Patent. On September 23, 2011, j2 Global and one of its affiliates filed suit against Vitelity in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On June 15, 2012, Vitelity filed counterclaims for invalidity and non-infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement; on the same day, each party filed its Opening Markman Brief. The Markman hearing is set for September 13, 2013. On February 21, 2012, EC Data filed a complaint against j2 Global and one of its affiliates in the United District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On April 9, 2012, j2 Global filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that EC Data infringes these and other patents. On May 14, 2012, EC Data filed an answer to j2 Global's counterclaims and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the '132 Patent and non-infringement of the '688 Patent. On August 29, 2012, the Court granted j2 Global's motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California. On May 31, 2012, EC Data submitted a request to the USPTO to submit the '132 Patent into inter-partes reexamination proceedings. On August 22, 2012, the USPTO granted EC Data's reexamination request and issued a non-final office action rejecting certain of the '132 Patent's claims; On April 25, 2013, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution and on July 26, 2013 a second Action Closing Prosecution. On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement; on the same day, each party filed its Opening Markman Brief. The Markman hearing is set for September 12, 2013. On June 28, 2013, j2 Global filed suit against EC Data in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of '980 Patent. EC Data has not yet filed its answer to j2 Global's complaint. On September 15, 2006, one of j2 Global's affiliates filed a patent infringement suit against IGC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Northern District of Georgia”). On May 13, 2008, IGC filed counterclaims alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and breach of contract. IGC is seeking damages, including treble and punitive damages, an injunction against further violations, divestiture of certain assets, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 18, 2009, the Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of the j2 Global affiliate's appeal of a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement in another case involving the same patents and issues as this action. On January 22, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement ruling in the other case and on June 7, 2010 the Court lifted the stay. On September 2, 2011, the Northern District of Georgia Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to dismiss IGC's breach of contract counterclaim and one portion of IGC's antitrust counterclaim. On October 21, 2011, IGC filed a motion to strike certain of the affirmative defenses asserted by the j2 Global affiliate, which the Northern District of Georgia Court granted in part on July 26, 2012, striking certain of the affirmative defenses at issue. Following additional discovery, on June 20, 2012, the j2 Global affiliate filed a motion to dismiss its infringement claims and IGC's counterclaims for declaratory relief. On July 27, 2012, the Northern District of Georgia Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to dismiss, dismissing the j2 Global affiliate's infringement claims and IGC's related counterclaims. Discovery is ongoing. On April 20, 2012, j2 Global and a different affiliate filed suit against IGC in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents. j2 Global and its affiliate sought a permanent injunction against continued infringement, a finding of willfulness, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. On July 2, 2012, IGC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or stay the action on the basis that the case is governed by a forum selection clause in a contract between a predecessor entity of j2 Global and IGC that allegedly mandates the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District of California”) as the venue. On July 9, 2012, j2 Global filed its opposition to IGC's motion to dismiss. On August 7, 2012, the Court granted in part IGC's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending a ruling by the Northern District of California on j2 Global's motion to dismiss or transfer in IGC's lawsuit against j2 Global in the Northern District of California. On May 8, 2013, IGC moved to dismiss the case for improper venue, based on the pendency of IGC's lawsuit against j2 in the Northern District of California. On June 27, 2013, the Court granted IGC's motion. On July 2, 2012, IGC filed suit against j2 Global and one of its affiliates in the Northern District of California, alleging that j2 Global - through filing suit in the Central District of California - breached a contract not to sue IGC. IGC seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, fees and costs, injunctive relief, and specific performance of the alleged covenant not to sue IGC. On August 24, 2012, j2 Global filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The motion was heard on October 26, 2012; the Court denied the motion on March 29, 2013. On April 12, 2013, j2 Global filed its answer and asserted counterclaims for infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents. On May 3, 2013, IGC asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents, implied license and exhaustion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On June 28, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part j2 Global's motion to dismiss certain of IGC's counterclaims, dismissing the claims for declaratory judgment of exhaustion and punitive damages. Discovery is underway, and the Court has set a trial date of April 21, 2014 on the issue of interpretation of the contract that IGC alleges j2 breached. On June 27, 2013, j2 Global filed suit against IGC in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of '980 Patent. IGC's answer to j2 Global's complaint is due by August 29, 2013. On February 17, 2011, Emmanuel Pantelakis (“Pantelakis”) filed suit against j2 Global Canada, Inc., carrying on business as Protus IP Solutions (“Protus”), in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that Protus breached a contract with Pantelakis in connection with Protus's e-mail marketing services. Pantelakis is seeking damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. Protus filed a responsive pleading on March 23, 2011. On July 16, 2012, Protus filed its responses to undertakings. On July 24, 2012, Pantelakis moved for an order granting him leave to file a second amended statement of claim re-framing his lawsuit as a negligence action. On September 27, 2012, the Court granted in part Pantelakis's motion, permitting him to plead claims for negligence and breach of contract, but limited the scope of discovery, awarded j2 Global its costs associated with its amended statement of defence, and reserved a further award of costs for the trial court. On November 6, 2012, Pantelakis filed his second amended statement of claim. j2 Global filed its amended statement of defence on April 8, 2013. The parties are permitted to conduct additional discoveries with respect to the new pleadings. A pre-trial has been scheduled for October 23, 2013 at which time a trial date will be scheduled. j2 Global does not believe, based on current knowledge, that the foregoing legal proceedings or claims, including those where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, after giving effect to existing reserves, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could materially affect j2 Global's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular period. The Company has not accrued for a loss contingency relating to certain of these legal proceedings because unfavorable outcomes are not considered by management to be probable or the amount of any losses reasonably estimable.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

From time-to-time, j2 Global is involved in litigation and other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of its business. Many of these actions involve or are filed in response to patent actions filed by j2 Global against others. The number and significance of these disputes and inquiries has increased as our business has expanded and j2 Global has grown. Any claims or regulatory actions against j2 Global, whether meritorious or not, could be time-consuming, result in costly litigation, require significant management time and result in diversion of significant operational resources.

As part of the Company's continuing effort to prevent the unauthorized use of its intellectual property, j2 Global has brought claims against several companies for infringing its patents relating to online fax, voice and other messaging technologies, including, among others, OpenText Corporation and its Captaris business (“OpenText”), EasyLink Services International Corporation (“EasyLink”), RingCentral, Inc. (“RingCentral”), Vitelity Communications, Inc. (“Vitelity”), EC Data Systems, Inc. (“EC Data”) and Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. (“IGC”).

On April 23, 2013, j2 Global reached a settlement of its litigation with OpenText, EasyLink, and EasyLink subsidiary Xpedite Systems, LLC. As part of this settlement, OpenText agreed to pay j2 Global $27,000,000.00 in exchange for a fully paid-up license to U.S. Patents Nos. 6,208,638 (the “'638 Patent”), 6,350,066 (the “'066 Patent”), 6,597,688 (the “'688 Patent”), 7,020,132 (the “'132 Patent”), and 6,020,980 (the “'980 Patent”) (collectively, the “j2 Global Licensed Patents”). OpenText also agreed to pay j2 Global a running royalty for a license to the j2 Global Licensed Patents for sales of fax software and services to individual and small office/home office customers, provided that such royalty exceeds a stipulated minimum amount. In connection with the settlement, OpenText granted j2 Global a fully paid-up license to United States Patent Nos. 5,872,640 and 7,804,823, together with all continuations, counterparts and reissues, for fax software and services sales. The following cases were dismissed with prejudice as part of this settlement: j2 Global v. Captaris, Inc.; j2 Global v. EasyLink; Xpedite Systems, LLC v. j2 Global; Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc. v. EasyLink; and j2 Global v. OpenText and EasyLink.

On April 26, 2013, j2 Global reached a settlement of its litigation with RingCentral and the parties have dismissed all claims in the pending litigation with prejudice. The following cases were dismissed: j2 Global and one of its affiliates had filed suit against RingCentral in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District of California”), alleging infringement of the '638, '066, and '132 Patents and seeking a permanent injunction against continued infringement, a finding of willfulness, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and interest and costs. RingCentral had filed counterclaims for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,702,669 (the “'669 Patent”) and unfair competition in violation of California's Business & Professions Code § 17200 et. seq. In connection with its counterclaims, RingCentral had sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '638, '066, and '132 Patents and damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs for the alleged infringement of the '669 Patent.

On September 23, 2011, j2 Global and one of its affiliates filed suit against Vitelity in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On June 15, 2012, Vitelity filed counterclaims for invalidity and non-infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement; on the same day, each party filed its Opening Markman Brief. The Markman hearing is set for September 13, 2013.

On February 21, 2012, EC Data filed a complaint against j2 Global and one of its affiliates in the United District Court for the District of Colorado, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '638 and '066 Patents. On April 9, 2012, j2 Global filed an answer to the complaint and counterclaims asserting that EC Data infringes these and other patents. On May 14, 2012, EC Data filed an answer to j2 Global's counterclaims and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the '132 Patent and non-infringement of the '688 Patent. On August 29, 2012, the Court granted j2 Global's motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California. On May 31, 2012, EC Data submitted a request to the USPTO to submit the '132 Patent into inter-partes reexamination proceedings. On August 22, 2012, the USPTO granted EC Data's reexamination request and issued a non-final office action rejecting certain of the '132 Patent's claims; On April 25, 2013, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution and on July 26, 2013 a second Action Closing Prosecution. On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement; on the same day, each party filed its Opening Markman Brief. The Markman hearing is set for September 12, 2013.

On June 28, 2013, j2 Global filed suit against EC Data in the Central District of California, alleging infringement of '980 Patent. EC Data has not yet filed its answer to j2 Global's complaint.

On September 15, 2006, one of j2 Global's affiliates filed a patent infringement suit against IGC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Northern District of Georgia”). On May 13, 2008, IGC filed counterclaims alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and breach of contract. IGC is seeking damages, including treble and punitive damages, an injunction against further violations, divestiture of certain assets, and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 18, 2009, the Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to stay the case pending the conclusion of the j2 Global affiliate's appeal of a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement in another case involving the same patents and issues as this action. On January 22, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the non-infringement ruling in the other case and on June 7, 2010 the Court lifted the stay. On September 2, 2011, the Northern District of Georgia Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to dismiss IGC's breach of contract counterclaim and one portion of IGC's antitrust counterclaim. On October 21, 2011, IGC filed a motion to strike certain of the affirmative defenses asserted by the j2 Global affiliate, which the Northern District of Georgia Court granted in part on July 26, 2012, striking certain of the affirmative defenses at issue. Following additional discovery, on June 20, 2012, the j2 Global affiliate filed a motion to dismiss its infringement claims and IGC's counterclaims for declaratory relief. On July 27, 2012, the Northern District of Georgia Court granted the j2 Global affiliate's motion to dismiss, dismissing the j2 Global affiliate's infringement claims and IGC's related counterclaims. Discovery is ongoing.

On April 20, 2012, j2 Global and a different affiliate filed suit against IGC in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents. j2 Global and its affiliate sought a permanent injunction against continued infringement, a finding of willfulness, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. On July 2, 2012, IGC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or stay the action on the basis that the case is governed by a forum selection clause in a contract between a predecessor entity of j2 Global and IGC that allegedly mandates the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District of California”) as the venue. On July 9, 2012, j2 Global filed its opposition to IGC's motion to dismiss. On August 7, 2012, the Court granted in part IGC's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending a ruling by the Northern District of California on j2 Global's motion to dismiss or transfer in IGC's lawsuit against j2 Global in the Northern District of California. On May 8, 2013, IGC moved to dismiss the case for improper venue, based on the pendency of IGC's lawsuit against j2 in the Northern District of California. On June 27, 2013, the Court granted IGC's motion.

On July 2, 2012, IGC filed suit against j2 Global and one of its affiliates in the Northern District of California, alleging that j2 Global - through filing suit in the Central District of California - breached a contract not to sue IGC. IGC seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, fees and costs, injunctive relief, and specific performance of the alleged covenant not to sue IGC. On August 24, 2012, j2 Global filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The motion was heard on October 26, 2012; the Court denied the motion on March 29, 2013. On April 12, 2013, j2 Global filed its answer and asserted counterclaims for infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents. On May 3, 2013, IGC asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement of the '638, '066, '688, and '132 Patents, implied license and exhaustion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On June 28, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part j2 Global's motion to dismiss certain of IGC's counterclaims, dismissing the claims for declaratory judgment of exhaustion and punitive damages. Discovery is underway, and the Court has set a trial date of April 21, 2014 on the issue of interpretation of the contract that IGC alleges j2 breached.

On June 27, 2013, j2 Global filed suit against IGC in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of '980 Patent. IGC's answer to j2 Global's complaint is due by August 29, 2013.

On February 17, 2011, Emmanuel Pantelakis (“Pantelakis”) filed suit against j2 Global Canada, Inc., carrying on business as Protus IP Solutions (“Protus”), in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that Protus breached a contract with Pantelakis in connection with Protus's e-mail marketing services. Pantelakis is seeking damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. Protus filed a responsive pleading on March 23, 2011. On July 16, 2012, Protus filed its responses to undertakings. On July 24, 2012, Pantelakis moved for an order granting him leave to file a second amended statement of claim re-framing his lawsuit as a negligence action. On September 27, 2012, the Court granted in part Pantelakis's motion, permitting him to plead claims for negligence and breach of contract, but limited the scope of discovery, awarded j2 Global its costs associated with its amended statement of defence, and reserved a further award of costs for the trial court. On November 6, 2012, Pantelakis filed his second amended statement of claim. j2 Global filed its amended statement of defence on April 8, 2013. The parties are permitted to conduct additional discoveries with respect to the new pleadings. A pre-trial has been scheduled for October 23, 2013 at which time a trial date will be scheduled.

j2 Global does not believe, based on current knowledge, that the foregoing legal proceedings or claims, including those where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible, after giving effect to existing reserves, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could materially affect j2 Global's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a particular period. The Company has not accrued for a loss contingency relating to certain of these legal proceedings because unfavorable outcomes are not considered by management to be probable or the amount of any losses reasonably estimable.