Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 05, 2015
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. 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 on December 9, 2013 in connection with the three petitions. 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 appealed the PTAB rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a hearing was held on March 4, 2015. On March 12, 2015, the appeals court issued orders that summarily affirm the PTAB ruling that all claims of each patent are invalid. 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, Inc. infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial currently is scheduled for August 21, 2015. On November 21, 2014, Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours that incorporate multiple stacked die infringe ten U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On December 15, 2014, Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that a variety of our NAND Flash products infringe eight U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. 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. 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, including final court approval of the class settlements, 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 2012. 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, 2012. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2012, 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 as of March 5, 2015, 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 MTI 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 July 9, 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 March 5, 2015, the Inotera Shares had a carrying value in equity method investments for purposes of our financial reporting of $657 million and a market value of $1.70 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.

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 on December 9, 2013 in connection with the three petitions. 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 appealed the PTAB rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and a hearing was held on March 4, 2015. On March 12, 2015, the appeals court issued orders that summarily affirm the PTAB ruling that all claims of each patent are invalid.

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, Inc. infringes a single U.S. patent and seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Trial currently is scheduled for August 21, 2015.

On November 21, 2014, Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours that incorporate multiple stacked die infringe ten U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On December 15, 2014, Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that a variety of our NAND Flash products infringe eight U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

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.

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, including final court approval of the class settlements, 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 2012. 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, 2012. The plaintiffs seek joint and several damages equal to the market value of shares owned by each of the plaintiffs on February 23, 2012, 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 as of March 5, 2015, 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 MTI 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 July 9, 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 March 5, 2015, the Inotera Shares had a carrying value in equity method investments for purposes of our financial reporting of $657 million and a market value of $1.70 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.