Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies	14. Commitments and Contingencies Line of Credit We have available for use a credit line of $50.0 million in the United States. As of September 30, 2011, we had no borrowings outstanding on the line of credit. The credit line bears interest at the bank's base rate and requires us, upon utilization of the credit line, to meet certain financial covenants with respect to limitations on losses. In the event the covenants are not met, the lender may require us to provide collateral to secure the outstanding balance. At September 30, 2011, we were in compliance with the covenants. RSA Special Charge In March 2011, RSA was the target of a sophisticated cyber attack which resulted in information related to RSA's SecurID products being compromised. In the first quarter of 2011, we incurred and accrued costs associated with investigating the attack, hardening our systems and working with our customers to implement remediation programs. In the second quarter of 2011, we recorded a $66.3 million charge in cost of sales related to the expansion of the customer remediation programs. We expanded our customer remediation programs in June 2011 to respond to heightened customer concerns resulting from press coverage relating to an unsuccessful cyber attack on one of our defense sector customers, as well as broad media coverage of cyber attacks on other high profile organizations. At September 30, 2011, we had a remaining reserve of $59.0 million included in accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We considered whether additional losses might result from the pending remediation efforts beyond our existing accrual and concluded that no additional material losses related to the remediation efforts are reasonably possible. We expect that the remediation efforts will be substantially completed by the end of the second quarter of 2012. Litigation We are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations, and proceedings, including those identified below, 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. We have received three derivative demand letters sent on behalf of purported EMC shareholders. The letters refer to a now-settled civil action in which EMC was named as a defendant and in which the United States (acting through the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ)) intervened. The civil action involved allegations concerning EMC's compliance with the terms and conditions of certain agreements pursuant to which we sold products and services to the federal government and EMC's fee arrangements with partners and systems integrators in federal government transactions. EMC reached a settlement of all claims asserted in this action effective as of May 4, 2010, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing. The derivative demand letters contend that the existence of the civil action serves as evidence that certain EMC officers and directors failed to exercise due care and/or failed to oversee compliance with certain federal laws. The matters relating to the demand letters were referred to a Special Committee of independent directors of the Board of Directors, which investigated and made a determination regarding such allegations. At the conclusion of their investigation, the Special Committee determined in good faith that commencing or maintaining derivative proceedings based on the allegations would not be in the best interests of EMC. In October 2009, one of the purported shareholders filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Middlesex County in Massachusetts alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty against EMC directors and certain officers based on the same allegations set forth in the demand letter. In May 2010, another purported shareholder filed a complaint in the same court making virtually identical allegations. In September 2011, the court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to both pending actions.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

14. Commitments and Contingencies

Line of Credit

We have available for use a credit line of $50.0 million in the United States. As of September 30, 2011, we had no borrowings outstanding on the line of credit. The credit line bears interest at the bank's base rate and requires us, upon utilization of the credit line, to meet certain financial covenants with respect to limitations on losses. In the event the covenants are not met, the lender may require us to provide collateral to secure the outstanding balance. At September 30, 2011, we were in compliance with the covenants.

RSA Special Charge

In March 2011, RSA was the target of a sophisticated cyber attack which resulted in information related to RSA's SecurID products being compromised. In the first quarter of 2011, we incurred and accrued costs associated with investigating the attack, hardening our systems and working with our customers to implement remediation programs. In the second quarter of 2011, we recorded a $66.3 million charge in cost of sales related to the expansion of the customer remediation programs. We expanded our customer remediation programs in June 2011 to respond to heightened customer concerns resulting from press coverage relating to an unsuccessful cyber attack on one of our defense sector customers, as well as broad media coverage of cyber attacks on other high profile organizations. At September 30, 2011, we had a remaining reserve of $59.0 million included in accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We considered whether additional losses might result from the pending remediation efforts beyond our existing accrual and concluded that no additional material losses related to the remediation efforts are reasonably possible. We expect that the remediation efforts will be substantially completed by the end of the second quarter of 2012.

Litigation

We are involved in a variety of claims, demands, suits, investigations, and proceedings, including those identified below, 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.

We have received three derivative demand letters sent on behalf of purported EMC shareholders. The letters refer to a now-settled civil action in which EMC was named as a defendant and in which the United States (acting through the Civil Division of the Department of Justice (DoJ)) intervened. The civil action involved allegations concerning EMC's compliance with the terms and conditions of certain agreements pursuant to which we sold products and services to the federal government and EMC's fee arrangements with partners and systems integrators in federal government transactions. EMC reached a settlement of all claims asserted in this action effective as of May 4, 2010, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing. The derivative demand letters contend that the existence of the civil action serves as evidence that certain EMC officers and directors failed to exercise due care and/or failed to oversee compliance with certain federal laws.

The matters relating to the demand letters were referred to a Special Committee of independent directors of the Board of Directors, which investigated and made a determination regarding such allegations. At the conclusion of their investigation, the Special Committee determined in good faith that commencing or maintaining derivative proceedings based on the allegations would not be in the best interests of EMC. In October 2009, one of the purported shareholders filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Middlesex County in Massachusetts alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty against EMC directors and certain officers based on the same allegations set forth in the demand letter. In May 2010, another purported shareholder filed a complaint in the same court making virtually identical allegations. In September 2011, the court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to both pending actions.