Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Contingent obligations Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial public offering (“IPO”) of our subsidiary NetSilicon, Inc. and approximately 300 other public companies. We acquired NetSilicon on February 13, 2002. The complaint named us as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of its officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserted, among other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated federal securities laws because they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers. We believed that the claims against the NetSilicon defendants were without merit and we defended the litigation vigorously. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002. As previously disclosed, the parties advised the District Court on February 25, 2009 that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness of the settlement. Five of those appeals were dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2010. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals. On January 10, 2012, the last remaining appeal was dismissed with prejudice, as a result of which the settlement became final, by its terms. 10. CONTINGENCIES (CONTINUED) In March 2012, our insurers paid to the plaintiffs on our behalf the full amount of the settlement share allocated to us of $337,838. We have no financial liability under the terms of the settlement agreement. As a result, during the second fiscal quarter of 2012, we reversed our accrued liability of $300,000 and the related receivable of $50,000. These accruals represented the estimated settlement of $300,000 less our $250,000 deductible. Patent Infringement Lawsuit On May 11, 2010, SIPCO, LLC filed a complaint naming us as a defendant in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas. This claim subsequently was moved to the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint included allegations against us and five other companies pertaining to the infringement of SIPCO's patents by wireless mesh networking and multi-port networking products. The complaint seeks monetary and non-monetary relief. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of possible loss at this time or whether it will have a materially adverse impact on our business prospects and our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. Collection Matter In December 2011, our wholly owned subsidiary, Spectrum Design Services, Inc., brought claims against Iota, Inc. (“Iota”) and Corsair Engineering, Inc. (“Corsair”) in Minnesota State District Court. The claims were made to collect unpaid receivables from Iota that are subject to a payment guaranty from Corsair. These claims arose out of a contract between Iota and Spectrum for the development of a custom product for Iota. Spectrum ceased work on the project for non-payment of invoices before making its claims. During our second quarter of fiscal 2012, Iota and Corsair removed the cases to Federal District Court in Minnesota and Iota asserted counterclaims against Spectrum for breach of contractual warranty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The counterclaims allege damages for recovery of over $300,000 previously paid by Iota to Spectrum as well as lost profits and other damages. We believe the counterclaims made by Iota are without merit and intend to vigorously pursue recovery of the unpaid receivables and defend against Iota's counterclaims. In the event the counterclaims are successful, it could have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. In addition to the matters discussed above, in the normal course of business, we are subject to various claims and litigation, which may include, but are not limited to, patent infringement and intellectual property claims. Our management expects that these various claims and litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

CONTINGENCIES

Contingent obligations

Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims relating to the initial public offering (“IPO”) of our subsidiary NetSilicon, Inc. and approximately 300 other public companies. We acquired NetSilicon on February 13, 2002. The complaint named us as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain of its officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's IPO, among numerous others, and asserted, among other things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated federal securities laws because they contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers. We believed that the claims against the NetSilicon defendants were without merit and we defended the litigation vigorously. Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.

As previously disclosed, the parties advised the District Court on February 25, 2009 that they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness of the settlement. Five of those appeals were dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2010. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals. On January 10, 2012, the last remaining appeal was dismissed with prejudice, as a result of which the settlement became final, by its terms.

10. CONTINGENCIES (CONTINUED)

In March 2012, our insurers paid to the plaintiffs on our behalf the full amount of the settlement share allocated to us of $337,838. We have no financial liability under the terms of the settlement agreement. As a result, during the second fiscal quarter of 2012, we reversed our accrued liability of $300,000 and the related receivable of $50,000. These accruals represented the estimated settlement of $300,000 less our $250,000 deductible.

Patent Infringement Lawsuit

On May 11, 2010, SIPCO, LLC filed a complaint naming us as a defendant in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas. This claim subsequently was moved to the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint included allegations against us and five other companies pertaining to the infringement of SIPCO's patents by wireless mesh networking and multi-port networking products. The complaint seeks monetary and non-monetary relief. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate a range of possible loss at this time or whether it will have a materially adverse impact on our business prospects and our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Collection Matter

In December 2011, our wholly owned subsidiary, Spectrum Design Services, Inc., brought claims against Iota, Inc. (“Iota”) and Corsair Engineering, Inc. (“Corsair”) in Minnesota State District Court. The claims were made to collect unpaid receivables from Iota that are subject to a payment guaranty from Corsair. These claims arose out of a contract between Iota and Spectrum for the development of a custom product for Iota. Spectrum ceased work on the project for non-payment of invoices before making its claims. During our second quarter of fiscal 2012, Iota and Corsair removed the cases to Federal District Court in Minnesota and Iota asserted counterclaims against Spectrum for breach of contractual warranty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The counterclaims allege damages for recovery of over $300,000 previously paid by Iota to Spectrum as well as lost profits and other damages. We believe the counterclaims made by Iota are without merit and intend to vigorously pursue recovery of the unpaid receivables and defend against Iota's counterclaims. In the event the counterclaims are successful, it could have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

In addition to the matters discussed above, in the normal course of business, we are subject to various claims and litigation, which may include, but are not limited to, patent infringement and intellectual property claims. Our management expects that these various claims and litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.