Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, product liability, employment, benefits and securities matters. As required by authoritative guidance, we have estimated the amount of probable losses that may result from all currently pending matters, and such amounts are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. These recorded amounts are not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations and no additional material losses related to these pending matters are reasonably possible. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters with certainty, we do not expect the results of any of these actions to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, however, the actual amounts of loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements, and we could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could adversely affect our operating results or cash flows in a particular period. During the second quarter of 2015, VMware reached an agreement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to pay $76 million to resolve allegations that VMware’s government sales practices between 2006 and 2013 had violated the federal False Claims Act. The settlement was paid and recorded as a reduction of VMware’s product revenues during the nine months ended September 30, 2015. As of November 6, 2015, eleven lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders, of which eight were filed (or are now pending) in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, one was filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, and two were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company’s directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the merger, as well as other remedies. Certain of the lawsuits also allege that the Company, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., Universal Acquisition Co., Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors. On October 23, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to consolidate all of the lawsuits then pending in state court in Massachusetts with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action names as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co. On October 27, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, § 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company. On November 5, 2015, the Company and its directors filed motions (i) to stay or dismiss the actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the ground that those actions are duplicative of the actions pending in state court in Massachusetts; and (ii) to dismiss those same actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the complaints in those actions fail to allege a basis for the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction. No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading in the other lawsuits. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations and proceedings that arise from time to time relating to matters incidental to the ordinary course of our business, including actions with respect to contracts, intellectual property, product liability, employment, benefits and securities matters. As required by authoritative guidance, we have estimated the amount of probable losses that may result from all currently pending matters, and such amounts are reflected in our consolidated financial statements. These recorded amounts are not material to our consolidated financial position or results of operations and no additional material losses related to these pending matters are reasonably possible. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters with certainty, we do not expect the results of any of these actions to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Because litigation is inherently unpredictable, however, the actual amounts of loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements, and we could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that could adversely affect our operating results or cash flows in a particular period.

During the second quarter of 2015, VMware reached an agreement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to pay $76 million to resolve allegations that VMware’s government sales practices between 2006 and 2013 had violated the federal False Claims Act. The settlement was paid and recorded as a reduction of VMware’s product revenues during the nine months ended September 30, 2015.

As of November 6, 2015, eleven lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders, of which eight were filed (or are now pending) in the Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, one was filed in the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts, and two were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

All of the lawsuits are purported shareholder class actions advancing substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company’s directors and seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the merger, as well as other remedies. Certain of the lawsuits also allege that the Company, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., Universal Acquisition Co., Silver Lake Partners, LLC, and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors.

On October 23, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to consolidate all of the lawsuits then pending in state court in Massachusetts with and into the first-filed of those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci, et al. That action names as defendants the Company and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of October 12, 2015), Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and Universal Acquisition Co.

On October 27, 2015, the Company and its directors served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, § 7.40 et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company.

On November 5, 2015, the Company and its directors filed motions (i) to stay or dismiss the actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the ground that those actions are duplicative of the actions pending in state court in Massachusetts; and (ii) to dismiss those same actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the complaints in those actions fail to allege a basis for the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

No defendant has yet filed a responsive pleading in the other lawsuits.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the Company’s operations. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.