Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 01, 2017
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-tech 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 November 21, 2014, Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC ("Elm") filed a patent infringement action against Micron, MSP, and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 27, 2015, Elm filed an amended complaint against the same entities. The amended complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours that incorporate multiple stacked die infringe thirteen U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On December 15, 2014, Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that a variety of our NAND products infringe eight U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On June 24, 2016, the President and Fellows of Harvard University filed a patent infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that a variety of our DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other unspecified relief. Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR DRAM, DDR2 DRAM, DDR3 DRAM, DDR4 DRAM, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPDRAM, NAND, 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. Qimonda On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda insolvency proceedings, filed suit against Micron 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 (the "Inotera Shares"), representing approximately 18% of Inotera's outstanding shares as of June 1, 2017 and seeks an order requiring us to re-transfer 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 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 canceled. 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. 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 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. 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-tech 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 November 21, 2014, Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC ("Elm") filed a patent infringement action against Micron, MSP, and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 27, 2015, Elm filed an amended complaint against the same entities. The amended complaint alleges that unspecified semiconductor products of ours that incorporate multiple stacked die infringe thirteen U.S. patents and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

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

On June 24, 2016, the President and Fellows of Harvard University filed a patent infringement action against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that a variety of our DRAM products infringe two U.S. patents and seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other unspecified relief.

Among other things, the above lawsuits pertain to certain of our DDR DRAM, DDR2 DRAM, DDR3 DRAM, DDR4 DRAM, SDR SDRAM, PSRAM, RLDRAM, LPDRAM, NAND, 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.

Qimonda

On January 20, 2011, Dr. Michael Jaffé, administrator for Qimonda insolvency proceedings, filed suit against Micron 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 (the "Inotera Shares"), representing approximately 18% of Inotera's outstanding shares as of June 1, 2017 and seeks an order requiring us to re-transfer 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 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 canceled. 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.

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 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.

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.