Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2012
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 16. Contingencies The Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, which arise in the normal course of its business. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations. The Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount is estimable, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. In connection with the Company's agreement to acquire Magma, four putative stockholder class actions were filed against Magma, Magma's board of directors, the Company and its merger subsidiary on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011, December 13, 2011, and December 19, 2011, in state court in California and Delaware (collectively, the Magma Lawsuits). The Magma Lawsuits allege, among other things, that Magma and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Magma's stockholders in negotiating and entering into the definitive merger agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma and the Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On February 10, 2012, the parties to the Magma Lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the defendants. Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning Magma's acquisition by the Company, which supplemented the information provided in Magma's proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, which would be immaterial to Synopsys' financials. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Magma's stockholders. On December 5, 2011, plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. (Dynetix) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company's VCS functional verification tool, and more specifically its VCS multicore technology and VCS Cloud product, infringes Dynetix's United States Patent No. 6,466,898, and that such infringement is willful. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. The Company has filed a motion for leave to amend its answer to assert patent infringement counterclaims against Dynetix and its two verification products.

Note 16. Contingencies

The Company is subject to routine legal proceedings, as well as demands, claims and threatened litigation, which arise in the normal course of its business. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations. The Company reviews the status of each significant matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and the amount is estimable, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss.

In connection with the Company's agreement to acquire Magma, four putative stockholder class actions were filed against Magma, Magma's board of directors, the Company and its merger subsidiary on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011, December 13, 2011, and December 19, 2011, in state court in California and Delaware (collectively, the Magma Lawsuits). The Magma Lawsuits allege, among other things, that Magma and its directors breached their fiduciary duties to Magma's stockholders in negotiating and entering into the definitive merger agreement and by agreeing to sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma and the Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On February 10, 2012, the parties to the Magma Lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the defendants. Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning Magma's acquisition by the Company, which supplemented the information provided in Magma's proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, which would be immaterial to Synopsys' financials. The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Magma's stockholders.

On December 5, 2011, plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. (Dynetix) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company's VCS functional verification tool, and more specifically its VCS multicore technology and VCS Cloud product, infringes Dynetix's United States Patent No. 6,466,898, and that such infringement is willful. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and a permanent injunction. The Company has filed a motion for leave to amend its answer to assert patent infringement counterclaims against Dynetix and its two verification products.