Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Aug. 28, 2014
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies We have accrued a liability and charged operations for the estimated costs of adjudication or settlement of various asserted and unasserted claims existing as of the balance sheet date, including those described below. We are currently a party to other legal actions arising from the normal course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Rambus On May 5, 2004, Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Francisco County) against us and other DRAM suppliers which alleged that the defendants harmed Rambus by engaging in concerted and unlawful efforts affecting Rambus DRAM by eliminating competition and stifling innovation in the market for computer memory technology and computer memory chips. Rambus' complaint alleged various causes of action under California state law including, among other things, a conspiracy to restrict output and fix prices, a conspiracy to monopolize, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Rambus sought a judgment for damages of approximately $3.90 billion, joint and several liability, trebling of damages awarded, punitive damages, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from the conduct alleged in the complaint, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trial began on June 20, 2011, and the case went to the jury on September 21, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the jury found for us on all claims. On April 2, 2012, Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the California 1st District Court of Appeal. We were engaged in litigation with Rambus relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus related to patent matters were pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy. In December 2013, we settled all pending litigation between us and Rambus, including all antitrust and patent matters. We also entered into a seven-year term patent cross-license agreement with Rambus that allows us to avoid costs of patent-related litigation during the term. We agreed to pay Rambus up to $10 million per quarter over seven years, for a total of $280 million, beginning in the second quarter of 2014. The primary benefits we received from these arrangements were (1) the settlement and termination of all existing litigation, (2) the avoidance of future litigation expenses and (3) the avoidance of future management and customer disruptions. As a result, other operating expense for the first quarter of 2014 included a $233 million charge to accrue a liability, which reflects the discounted value of amounts due under this arrangement. Patent Matters As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time others have asserted, and may in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights. On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants, including MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. On August 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM and image sensor products infringe four U.S. patents and that certain MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial currently is scheduled for February 22, 2016. On March 23, 2012, MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. filed a Notice of Filing and Hearing on Petition Under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Issuance of Provisional Relief that included an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware staying judicial proceedings against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) was stayed. On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered its Order (1) Granting Recognition of the Japanese Reorganization Plan of MMJ and the Tokyo District Court's Confirmation Orders, (2) Entrusting MMJ's U.S. Assets to Foreign Representatives and Approving Certain Plan Transactions, (3) Granting Permanent Injunction, and (4) Granting Related Relief (the "Recognition Order"). Pursuant to the Recognition Order, the plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from continuing their case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. in respect of any claim or claims arising prior to the commencement of the Japan Proceeding (as defined in the Recognition Order). On December 5, 2011, the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois (the "University") filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours infringe three U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. We have filed three petitions for inter-partes review by the Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of each of the patents in suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") held a hearing in connection with the three petitions on December 9, 2013. On March 10, 2014, the PTAB issued written decisions finding that each and every claim in the three patents in suit is invalid, and cancelled all claims. The University has appealed the PTAB rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 27, 2012, Semcon Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that our use of various chemical mechanical planarization systems purchased from Applied Materials infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial is currently scheduled for August 21, 2015. On December 7, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against MMJ, Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and numerous other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. products infringe four U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Prior to answering the complaint, MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. and other defendants filed motions to stay the case pending final resolution of a case before the International Trade Commission ("ITC") against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. and other respondents, alleging infringement of the same patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas case (In The Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the "ITC Action")). On February 25, 2008, the Eastern District of Texas Court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action. On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination in the ITC Action finding no violation by MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. Tessera, Inc. subsequently appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's Final Determination. Additionally, by operation of the Recognition Order, plaintiff in that action is permanently enjoined from continuing its case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) in respect of any claim or claims arising prior to the commencement of the Japan Proceeding (as defined in the Recognition Order). On July 30, 2014, we entered into a five-year term patent cross-license agreement with Tessera, which also settled the pending litigation against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA). The agreement, which requires us to make quarterly payments over its term, gives us “life-of-product” protection for specifically identified DRAM products and a term license for certain other products. We capitalized an intangible asset for the term of the agreement and also recorded a $66 million charge to cost of goods sold in the fourth quarter of 2014. Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR, DDR2, DDR3, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPDRAM, NAND Flash, image sensor products and certain other memory products we manufacture, which account for a significant portion of our net sales. Except for the Tessera matter discussed above, we are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. A determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others or entering into a license agreement covering such intellectual property could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Antitrust Matters At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against us and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, we executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, we agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. We paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement agreement. On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July 1998 to June 2002. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the above discussion of the U.S. indirect purchaser cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Securities Matters On July 12, 2013, seven former shareholders of Elpida (now known as MMJ) filed a complaint against Messrs. Sakamoto, Adachi, Gomi, Shirai, Tsay-Jiu, Wataki, Kinoshita, and Takahasi in their capacity as members of the board of directors of MMJ as of February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the financial condition of MMJ and deceive shareholders prior to MMJ filing a petition for corporate reorganization on February 27, 2013. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2013, along with attorneys' fees and interest. At a hearing on September 25, 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew the complaint against Mr. Tsay-Jiu. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this matter could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Qimonda On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda insolvency proceedings, filed suit against MTI and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary ("Micron B.V."), in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between Micron B.V. and Qimonda signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which Micron B.V. purchased substantially all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. (the "Inotera Shares"), representing approximately 55% of our total shares in Inotera, and seeks an order requiring us to retransfer those shares to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks, among other things, to recover damages for the alleged value of the joint venture relationship with Inotera and to terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross-license between us and Qimonda entered into at the same time as the share purchase agreement. Following a series of hearings with pleadings, arguments and witnesses on behalf of the Qimonda estate, on March 13, 2014, the Court issued judgments: (1) ordering Micron B.V. to pay approximately $1 million in respect of certain Inotera shares sold in connection with the original share purchase; (2) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose certain information with respect to any Inotera Shares sold by it to third parties; (3) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose the benefits derived by it from ownership of the Inotera Shares, including in particular, any profits distributed on such shares and all other benefits; (4) denying Qimonda’s claims against Micron Technology for any damages relating to the joint venture relationship with Inotera; and (5) determining that Qimonda's obligations under the patent cross-license agreement are cancelled. In addition, the Court issued interlocutory judgments ordering, among other things: (1) that Micron B.V. transfer to the Qimonda estate the Inotera Shares still owned by it and pay to the Qimonda estate compensation in an amount to be specified for any Inotera Shares sold to third parties; and (2) that Micron B.V. pay the Qimonda estate as compensation an amount to be specified for benefits derived by it from ownership of the Inotera Shares. The interlocutory judgments have no immediate, enforceable effect on us, and, accordingly, we expect to be able to continue to operate with full control of the Inotera Shares subject to further developments in the case. We have filed a notice of appeal, and the parties have submitted briefs to the appeals court. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 2, 2015. We are unable to predict the outcome of the matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera Shares or equivalent monetary damages, unspecified damages based on the benefits derived by Micron B.V. from the ownership of the Inotera Shares, and/or the termination of the patent cross-license, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. As of August 28, 2014, the Inotera Shares had a carrying value in equity method investments for purposes of our financial reporting of $505 million and a market value of $2.06 billion. Other In the normal course of business, we are a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, our payments under these types of agreements have not had a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Contingencies

We have accrued a liability and charged operations for the estimated costs of adjudication or settlement of various asserted and unasserted claims existing as of the balance sheet date, including those described below. We are currently a party to other legal actions arising from the normal course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Rambus

On May 5, 2004, Rambus, Inc. ("Rambus") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California (San Francisco County) against us and other DRAM suppliers which alleged that the defendants harmed Rambus by engaging in concerted and unlawful efforts affecting Rambus DRAM by eliminating competition and stifling innovation in the market for computer memory technology and computer memory chips. Rambus' complaint alleged various causes of action under California state law including, among other things, a conspiracy to restrict output and fix prices, a conspiracy to monopolize, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Rambus sought a judgment for damages of approximately $3.90 billion, joint and several liability, trebling of damages awarded, punitive damages, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from the conduct alleged in the complaint, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Trial began on June 20, 2011, and the case went to the jury on September 21, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the jury found for us on all claims. On April 2, 2012, Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the California 1st District Court of Appeal.

We were engaged in litigation with Rambus relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus related to patent matters were pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy.

In December 2013, we settled all pending litigation between us and Rambus, including all antitrust and patent matters. We also entered into a seven-year term patent cross-license agreement with Rambus that allows us to avoid costs of patent-related litigation during the term. We agreed to pay Rambus up to $10 million per quarter over seven years, for a total of $280 million, beginning in the second quarter of 2014. The primary benefits we received from these arrangements were (1) the settlement and termination of all existing litigation, (2) the avoidance of future litigation expenses and (3) the avoidance of future management and customer disruptions. As a result, other operating expense for the first quarter of 2014 included a $233 million charge to accrue a liability, which reflects the discounted value of amounts due under this arrangement.

Patent Matters

As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time others have asserted, and may in the future assert, that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights.

On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants, including MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. On August 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint alleges that certain of our DRAM and image sensor products infringe four U.S. patents and that certain MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial currently is scheduled for February 22, 2016. On March 23, 2012, MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. filed a Notice of Filing and Hearing on Petition Under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Issuance of Provisional Relief that included an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware staying judicial proceedings against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) was stayed. On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered its Order (1) Granting Recognition of the Japanese Reorganization Plan of MMJ and the Tokyo District Court's Confirmation Orders, (2) Entrusting MMJ's U.S. Assets to Foreign Representatives and Approving Certain Plan Transactions, (3) Granting Permanent Injunction, and (4) Granting Related Relief (the "Recognition Order"). Pursuant to the Recognition Order, the plaintiffs are permanently enjoined from continuing their case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. in respect of any claim or claims arising prior to the commencement of the Japan Proceeding (as defined in the Recognition Order).

On December 5, 2011, the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois (the "University") filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours infringe three U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. We have filed three petitions for inter-partes review by the Patent and Trademark Office, challenging the validity of each of the patents in suit. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") held a hearing in connection with the three petitions on December 9, 2013. On March 10, 2014, the PTAB issued written decisions finding that each and every claim in the three patents in suit is invalid, and cancelled all claims. The University has appealed the PTAB rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On April 27, 2012, Semcon Tech, LLC filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that our use of various chemical mechanical planarization systems purchased from Applied Materials infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial is currently scheduled for August 21, 2015.

On December 7, 2007, Tessera, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against MMJ, Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and numerous other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. products infringe four U.S. patents and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Prior to answering the complaint, MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. and other defendants filed motions to stay the case pending final resolution of a case before the International Trade Commission ("ITC") against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. and other respondents, alleging infringement of the same patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas case (In The Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (III), ITC No. 337-TA-630 (the "ITC Action")). On February 25, 2008, the Eastern District of Texas Court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action. On December 29, 2009, the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination in the ITC Action finding no violation by MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. Tessera, Inc. subsequently appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 23, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's Final Determination. Additionally, by operation of the Recognition Order, plaintiff in that action is permanently enjoined from continuing its case against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA) in respect of any claim or claims arising prior to the commencement of the Japan Proceeding (as defined in the Recognition Order). On July 30, 2014, we entered into a five-year term patent cross-license agreement with Tessera, which also settled the pending litigation against MMJ and Elpida Memory (USA). The agreement, which requires us to make quarterly payments over its term, gives us “life-of-product” protection for specifically identified DRAM products and a term license for certain other products. We capitalized an intangible asset for the term of the agreement and also recorded a $66 million charge to cost of goods sold in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR, DDR2, DDR3, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPDRAM, NAND Flash, image sensor products and certain other memory products we manufacture, which account for a significant portion of our net sales.

Except for the Tessera matter discussed above, we are unable to predict the outcome of assertions of infringement made against us and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. A determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the intellectual property rights of others or entering into a license agreement covering such intellectual property could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Antitrust Matters

At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits have been filed against us and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek joint and several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases were removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial proceedings. In July 2006, the Attorneys General for approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief. On October 3, 2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local California government entities, alleging, among other things, violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law. On June 23, 2010, we executed a settlement agreement resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged DRAM price-fixing in the United States. Subject to certain conditions, we agreed to pay approximately $67 million in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period. We paid the full amount into an escrow account by the end of the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with the settlement agreement.

On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had initiated an investigation relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers and certain executives, including us, and focuses on the period from July 1998 to June 2002.

We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, except as noted in the above discussion of the U.S. indirect purchaser cases. The final resolution of these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Securities Matters

On July 12, 2013, seven former shareholders of Elpida (now known as MMJ) filed a complaint against Messrs. Sakamoto, Adachi, Gomi, Shirai, Tsay-Jiu, Wataki, Kinoshita, and Takahasi in their capacity as members of the board of directors of MMJ as of February 2013. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts and misrepresentations to hide the financial condition of MMJ and deceive shareholders prior to MMJ filing a petition for corporate reorganization on February 27, 2013. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2013, along with attorneys' fees and interest. At a hearing on September 25, 2013, the plaintiffs withdrew the complaint against Mr. Tsay-Jiu.

We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this matter could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Qimonda

On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda insolvency proceedings, filed suit against MTI and Micron Semiconductor B.V., our Netherlands subsidiary ("Micron B.V."), in the District Court of Munich, Civil Chamber. The complaint seeks to void under Section 133 of the German Insolvency Act a share purchase agreement between Micron B.V. and Qimonda signed in fall 2008 pursuant to which Micron B.V. purchased substantially all of Qimonda's shares of Inotera Memories, Inc. (the "Inotera Shares"), representing approximately 55% of our total shares in Inotera, and seeks an order requiring us to retransfer those shares to the Qimonda estate. The complaint also seeks, among other things, to recover damages for the alleged value of the joint venture relationship with Inotera and to terminate under Sections 103 or 133 of the German Insolvency Code a patent cross-license between us and Qimonda entered into at the same time as the share purchase agreement.

Following a series of hearings with pleadings, arguments and witnesses on behalf of the Qimonda estate, on March 13, 2014, the Court issued judgments: (1) ordering Micron B.V. to pay approximately $1 million in respect of certain Inotera shares sold in connection with the original share purchase; (2) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose certain information with respect to any Inotera Shares sold by it to third parties; (3) ordering Micron B.V. to disclose the benefits derived by it from ownership of the Inotera Shares, including in particular, any profits distributed on such shares and all other benefits; (4) denying Qimonda’s claims against Micron Technology for any damages relating to the joint venture relationship with Inotera; and (5) determining that Qimonda's obligations under the patent cross-license agreement are cancelled. In addition, the Court issued interlocutory judgments ordering, among other things: (1) that Micron B.V. transfer to the Qimonda estate the Inotera Shares still owned by it and pay to the Qimonda estate compensation in an amount to be specified for any Inotera Shares sold to third parties; and (2) that Micron B.V. pay the Qimonda estate as compensation an amount to be specified for benefits derived by it from ownership of the Inotera Shares. The interlocutory judgments have no immediate, enforceable effect on us, and, accordingly, we expect to be able to continue to operate with full control of the Inotera Shares subject to further developments in the case. We have filed a notice of appeal, and the parties have submitted briefs to the appeals court. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 2, 2015.

We are unable to predict the outcome of the matter and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss. The final resolution of this lawsuit could result in the loss of the Inotera Shares or equivalent monetary damages, unspecified damages based on the benefits derived by Micron B.V. from the ownership of the Inotera Shares, and/or the termination of the patent cross-license, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial condition. As of August 28, 2014, the Inotera Shares had a carrying value in equity method investments for purposes of our financial reporting of $505 million and a market value of $2.06 billion.

Other

In the normal course of business, we are a party to a variety of agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to indemnify the other party. It is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments under these types of agreements due to the conditional nature of our obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, our payments under these types of agreements have not had a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.