Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 27, 2014
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially. Intellectual Property Litigation Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al.—On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,916,635 (the “'635 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 (the “'267 patent”), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. In the complaint, the plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, $800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, including for willful infringement. On January 16, 2002, Convolve filed an amended complaint, alleging defendants infringe US Patent No. 6,314,473 (the “'473 patent”). The district court ruled in 2010 that the '267 patent was out of the case. On August 16, 2011, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment. On July 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court's summary judgment rulings that Seagate did not misappropriate any of the alleged trade secrets and that the asserted claims of the '635 patent are invalid; 2) reversed and vacated the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the '473 patent; and 3) remanded the case for further proceedings on the '473 patent. On July 11, 2014, the district court issued its ruling on the Company’s summary judgment motion regarding Convolve’s only remaining cause of action, which alleged infringement of the ‘473 patent; the court granted the motion and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company on July 14, 2014. In view of the rulings made by the district court and the Court of Appeals and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Alexander Shukh v. Seagate Technology—On February 12, 2010, Alexander Shukh filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging, among other things, employment discrimination based on his Belarusian national origin and wrongful failure to name him as an inventor on several patents and patent applications. Mr. Shukh's employment was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force in fiscal year 2009. He seeks damages in excess of $75 million. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. On March 31, 2014, the district court granted Seagate’s summary judgment motion and entered judgment in favor of Seagate. Mr. Shukh filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2014. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. LEAP Co., Ltd. v. Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd. and Nippon Seagate Inc.—On July 4, 2012, LEAP Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court of Japan against Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd., Nippon Seagate Inc. and Buffalo Inc. alleging wrongful termination of purchase agreements and other claims, and seeking approximately $38 million in damages. A date for the start of trial has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation ITC Investigation re Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same-On September 19, 2012, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) seeking an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”). The complaint names LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology as respondents and alleges infringement of U.S. patents relating to integrated circuit chips that include bond pad structures. Realtek seeks an order to exclude entry of infringing integrated circuit chips and products containing the infringing integrated circuit chips into the U.S. and a cease and desist order. The ITC initiated an investigation on October 18, 2012. On March 21, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination in favor of Seagate and LSI. On July 21, 2014, the Commission gave notice that it had determined to affirm in part, reverse in part and vacate in part the ALJ’s Initial Determination; the Commission found that no violation of Section 337 by Seagate or LSI has occurred based on findings that certain of the patent claims at issue were invalid, and that Realtek failed to show the existence of an industry in the U.S. that exploits the patent. In view of the uncertainty regarding the possible outcome of this case and the nature of the relief sought, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, or other possible adverse result, if any, that may be incurred with respect to this matter. Enova Technology Corporation v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al.-On June 5, 2013, Enova Technology Corporation filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,136,995, “Cryptographic Device,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057, “Cryptographic Serial ATA Apparatus and Method.” The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, enhanced damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The trial is scheduled to begin May 9, 2016. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter. Environmental Matters The Company's operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company's operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities. The Company has established environmental management systems and continually updates its environmental policies and standard operating procedures for its operations worldwide. The Company believes that its operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits. The Company budgets for operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws. If additional or more stringent requirements are imposed on the Company in the future, it could incur additional operating costs and capital expenditures. Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time. While the Company's ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material. The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The European Union REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern (“SVHCs”) in products. If the Company or its suppliers fails to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company's business. Other Matters The Company is involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to its business, and the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies

The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims, or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Convolve, Inc. (“Convolve”) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al.—On July 13, 2000, Convolve and MIT filed suit against Compaq Computer Corporation and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,916,635 (the “'635 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,638,267 (the “'267 patent”), misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. In the complaint, the plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, $800 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, including for willful infringement. On January 16, 2002, Convolve filed an amended complaint, alleging defendants infringe US Patent No. 6,314,473 (the “'473 patent”). The district court ruled in 2010 that the '267 patent was out of the case.

On August 16, 2011, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion for summary judgment. On July 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: 1) affirmed the district court's summary judgment rulings that Seagate did not misappropriate any of the alleged trade secrets and that the asserted claims of the '635 patent are invalid; 2) reversed and vacated the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to the '473 patent; and 3) remanded the case for further proceedings on the '473 patent. On July 11, 2014, the district court issued its ruling on the Company’s summary judgment motion regarding Convolve’s only remaining cause of action, which alleged infringement of the ‘473 patent; the court granted the motion and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. The court entered judgment in favor of the Company on July 14, 2014. In view of the rulings made by the district court and the Court of Appeals and the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded Convolve in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Alexander Shukh v. Seagate Technology—On February 12, 2010, Alexander Shukh filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging, among other things, employment discrimination based on his Belarusian national origin and wrongful failure to name him as an inventor on several patents and patent applications. Mr. Shukh's employment was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force in fiscal year 2009. He seeks damages in excess of $75 million. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. On March 31, 2014, the district court granted Seagate’s summary judgment motion and entered judgment in favor of Seagate. Mr. Shukh filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2014. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

LEAP Co., Ltd. v. Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd. and Nippon Seagate Inc.—On July 4, 2012, LEAP Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court of Japan against Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd., Nippon Seagate Inc. and Buffalo Inc. alleging wrongful termination of purchase agreements and other claims, and seeking approximately $38 million in damages. A date for the start of trial has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Realtek Semiconductor Corporation ITC Investigation re Certain Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same-On September 19, 2012, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) seeking an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”). The complaint names LSI Corporation and Seagate Technology as respondents and alleges infringement of U.S. patents relating to integrated circuit chips that include bond pad structures. Realtek seeks an order to exclude entry of infringing integrated circuit chips and products containing the infringing integrated circuit chips into the U.S. and a cease and desist order. The ITC initiated an investigation on October 18, 2012. On March 21, 2014, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination in favor of Seagate and LSI. On July 21, 2014, the Commission gave notice that it had determined to affirm in part, reverse in part and vacate in part the ALJ’s Initial Determination; the Commission found that no violation of Section 337 by Seagate or LSI has occurred based on findings that certain of the patent claims at issue were invalid, and that Realtek failed to show the existence of an industry in the U.S. that exploits the patent. In view of the uncertainty regarding the possible outcome of this case and the nature of the relief sought, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, or other possible adverse result, if any, that may be incurred with respect to this matter.

Enova Technology Corporation v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al.-On June 5, 2013, Enova Technology Corporation filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,136,995, “Cryptographic Device,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057, “Cryptographic Serial ATA Apparatus and Method.” The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, enhanced damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The trial is scheduled to begin May 9, 2016. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages, if any, that could be awarded in this matter, the Company does not believe that it is currently possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the possible range of loss related to this matter.

Environmental Matters

The Company's operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company's operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities.

The Company has established environmental management systems and continually updates its environmental policies and standard operating procedures for its operations worldwide. The Company believes that its operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits. The Company budgets for operating and capital costs on an ongoing basis to comply with environmental laws. If additional or more stringent requirements are imposed on the Company in the future, it could incur additional operating costs and capital expenditures.

Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time.

While the Company's ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material.

The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The European Union REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern (“SVHCs”) in products. If the Company or its suppliers fails to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company's business.

Other Matters

The Company is involved in a number of other judicial and administrative proceedings incidental to its business, and the Company may be involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.