Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies	(7) Commitments and Contingencies *(a) Commitments* From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third party claims. These contracts are primarily contracts under which the Company has agreed to indemnify customers and partners for third party claims arising from intellectual property infringement. The conditions of these obligations vary and often a maximum obligation is explicitly stated. Because the conditions of these obligations vary and the maximum is not always explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations, and accordingly, has not recorded an indemnification liability on its balance sheets as of September 30, 2012 or December 31, 2011. The Company leases office space and computer and other equipment under operating lease agreements. It also leases certain computer and other equipment under capital lease agreements. Under these agreements, in addition to base rent, the Company is generally responsible for certain taxes, utilities and maintenance costs, and other fees; and several leases include options for renewal or purchase. The Company leases approximately 190,000 square feet of office space at a location in Northern Virginia that began serving as its corporate headquarters in October 2010. The lease includes tenant incentives and allowances that the Company may use for leasehold improvements. The term of the lease expires in December 2020. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, deferred rent of $23.4 million and $24.9 million, respectively, is included in other long-term liabilities and $2.4 million and $1.8 million, respectively, is included in current accrued expenses. In July 2011, the Company entered into a lease for a 37.5% fractional interest in a corporate aircraft owned and managed by a fractional interest program operator. The Company terminated the fractional interest lease in September 2012 following the return to service of the Company’s owned corporate aircraft in the second quarter of 2012. *(b) Contingencies* In 2007, Diagnostic Systems Corp., a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation (“Acacia Research”), filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and a number of other unrelated defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The Company and Acacia Research, Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC, and Acacia Technology Services LLC reached a settlement with respect to the consolidated complaint in December 2009 (the “Settlement Agreement”). On June 29, 2010, the Company received correspondence from a law firm representing Database Application Solutions LLC (“DAS”), an affiliate of Acacia Research, alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Number 5,444,842 (the “’842 Patent”). On August 17, 2010, the Company sued Acacia Research and DAS in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging, among other things, breach of the Settlement Agreement and breach of representations and warranties made in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Company brought a fraudulent inducement claim against Acacia Research relating to the Settlement Agreement. Acacia Research and DAS filed separate motions to dismiss the Company’s lawsuit. On December 30, 2010, the court dismissed the Company’s breach of contract claim against Acacia Research and DAS, denied Acacia Research’s and DAS’s motions to dismiss the breach of representation and warranty claim against both Acacia Research and DAS, and permitted the Company to continue to pursue its fraudulent inducement claim against Acacia Research. On October 31, 2011, the Company received correspondence from the law firm representing Acacia Research and DAS containing a purported “unilateral release and covenant not to sue” the Company on the ’842 Patent. On October 31, 2011, Acacia Research and DAS filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, among other things, that their purported “unilateral release and covenant not to sue” moots the Company’s breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims. Acacia Research and DAS also asserted a counterclaim against the Company seeking to recover their legal fees for the Company’s alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, and arguments on the motions are scheduled for November 8, 2012. Trial is scheduled for February 4, 2013. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for this matter has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. In February 2010, the Company’s owned corporate aircraft was damaged when the hangar space that the Company leases at Dulles International Airport to house the aircraft collapsed during snowfall in the Washington, DC area. As of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an $8.6 million impairment charge for the estimated loss of property and equipment related to the Company’s owned corporate aircraft based on the cost of repairs associated with its efforts to return the aircraft to service. The repair process for the aircraft has been completed and the aircraft was returned to service in May 2012. Based on the final assessments of the damage, the Company recorded an additional impairment charge of $1.0 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012, for a total loss of $9.6 million related to the Company’s owned corporate aircraft through such date. The Company did not record any additional impairment charge during the three months ended September 30, 2012. The Company carries insurance that covers both accidental damage to and physical loss of the aircraft. To date, the Company has recorded a $9.6 million receivable for the insurance recovery for the aircraft damage and $0.7 million receivable for other costs incurred during the repair process, for a total of $10.3 million, all of which had been received as of September 30, 2012. In December 2011, Datatern, Inc. (“Datatern”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 (the “’502 Patent”), allegedly owned by Datatern, by making, selling, or offering for sale several of the Company’s products and services including MicroStrategy 9^TM, MicroStrategy Intelligence Server^TM, MicroStrategy BI Platform^TM, Cloud Personal^TM, and other MicroStrategy applications for creating or using data mining, dashboards, business analytics, data storage and warehousing, and web hosting support. The complaint accused the Company of willful infringement and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The case has been stayed pending final judgment in a separate action involving the ’502 Patent filed by Datatern in the Southern District of New York, in which MicroStrategy is not a party. The Company has also received indemnification requests from certain of its resellers who were sued by Datatern in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in lawsuits alleging infringement of the ’502 Patent. The outcome of these matters is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these matters at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for these matters has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. In December 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“Vasudevan”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company’s sale of MicroStrategy 9 and other MicroStrategy products infringes four patents allegedly owned by Vasudevan known as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,877,006, 7,167,864, 7,720,861, and 8,082,268, all entitled “Multimedia Inspection Database System for Dynamic Runtime Evaluation.” The complaint accused the Company of infringement, inducing others to infringe, and acts of contributory infringement with respect to the patents at issue and seeks a permanent injunction, an unspecified amount of damages, and other relief as may be granted by the court. The Company filed its answer to the Vasudevan complaint and pled inequitable conduct counterclaims in March 2012. Discovery in the case is ongoing. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for this matter has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company is also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.

(7) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third party claims. These contracts are primarily contracts under which the Company has agreed to indemnify customers and partners for third party claims arising from intellectual property infringement. The conditions of these obligations vary and often a maximum obligation is explicitly stated. Because the conditions of these obligations vary and the maximum is not always explicitly stated, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations, and accordingly, has not recorded an indemnification liability on its balance sheets as of September 30, 2012 or December 31, 2011.

The Company leases office space and computer and other equipment under operating lease agreements. It also leases certain computer and other equipment under capital lease agreements. Under these agreements, in addition to base rent, the Company is generally responsible for certain taxes, utilities and maintenance costs, and other fees; and several leases include options for renewal or purchase. The Company leases approximately 190,000 square feet of office space at a location in Northern Virginia that began serving as its corporate headquarters in October 2010. The lease includes tenant incentives and allowances that the Company may use for leasehold improvements. The term of the lease expires in December 2020. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, deferred rent of $23.4 million and $24.9 million, respectively, is included in other long-term liabilities and $2.4 million and $1.8 million, respectively, is included in current accrued expenses.

In July 2011, the Company entered into a lease for a 37.5% fractional interest in a corporate aircraft owned and managed by a fractional interest program operator. The Company terminated the fractional interest lease in September 2012 following the return to service of the Company’s owned corporate aircraft in the second quarter of 2012.

(b) Contingencies

In 2007, Diagnostic Systems Corp., a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation (“Acacia Research”), filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company and a number of other unrelated defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The Company and Acacia Research, Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC, and Acacia Technology Services LLC reached a settlement with respect to the consolidated complaint in December 2009 (the “Settlement Agreement”). On June 29, 2010, the Company received correspondence from a law firm representing Database Application Solutions LLC (“DAS”), an affiliate of Acacia Research, alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Number 5,444,842 (the “’842 Patent”). On August 17, 2010, the Company sued Acacia Research and DAS in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging, among other things, breach of the Settlement Agreement and breach of representations and warranties made in the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the Company brought a fraudulent inducement claim against Acacia Research relating to the Settlement Agreement. Acacia Research and DAS filed separate motions to dismiss the Company’s lawsuit. On December 30, 2010, the court dismissed the Company’s breach of contract claim against Acacia Research and DAS, denied Acacia Research’s and DAS’s motions to dismiss the breach of representation and warranty claim against both Acacia Research and DAS, and permitted the Company to continue to pursue its fraudulent inducement claim against Acacia Research. On October 31, 2011, the Company received correspondence from the law firm representing Acacia Research and DAS containing a purported “unilateral release and covenant not to sue” the Company on the ’842 Patent. On October 31, 2011, Acacia Research and DAS filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, among other things, that their purported “unilateral release and covenant not to sue” moots the Company’s breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims. Acacia Research and DAS also asserted a counterclaim against the Company seeking to recover their legal fees for the Company’s alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, and arguments on the motions are scheduled for November 8, 2012. Trial is scheduled for February 4, 2013. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for this matter has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

In February 2010, the Company’s owned corporate aircraft was damaged when the hangar space that the Company leases at Dulles International Airport to house the aircraft collapsed during snowfall in the Washington, DC area. As of December 31, 2011, the Company recorded an $8.6 million impairment charge for the estimated loss of property and equipment related to the Company’s owned corporate aircraft based on the cost of repairs associated with its efforts to return the aircraft to service. The repair process for the aircraft has been completed and the aircraft was returned to service in May 2012. Based on the final assessments of the damage, the Company recorded an additional impairment charge of $1.0 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012, for a total loss of $9.6 million related to the Company’s owned corporate aircraft through such date. The Company did not record any additional impairment charge during the three months ended September 30, 2012.

The Company carries insurance that covers both accidental damage to and physical loss of the aircraft. To date, the Company has recorded a $9.6 million receivable for the insurance recovery for the aircraft damage and $0.7 million receivable for other costs incurred during the repair process, for a total of $10.3 million, all of which had been received as of September 30, 2012.

In December 2011, Datatern, Inc. (“Datatern”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,101,502 (the “’502 Patent”), allegedly owned by Datatern, by making, selling, or offering for sale several of the Company’s products and services including MicroStrategy 9^TM, MicroStrategy Intelligence Server^TM, MicroStrategy BI Platform^TM, Cloud Personal^TM, and other MicroStrategy applications for creating or using data mining, dashboards, business analytics, data storage and warehousing, and web hosting support. The complaint accused the Company of willful infringement and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The case has been stayed pending final judgment in a separate action involving the ’502 Patent filed by Datatern in the Southern District of New York, in which MicroStrategy is not a party. The Company has also received indemnification requests from certain of its resellers who were sued by Datatern in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in lawsuits alleging infringement of the ’502 Patent. The outcome of these matters is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these matters at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for these matters has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

In December 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“Vasudevan”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company’s sale of MicroStrategy 9 and other MicroStrategy products infringes four patents allegedly owned by Vasudevan known as U.S. Patent Nos. 6,877,006, 7,167,864, 7,720,861, and 8,082,268, all entitled “Multimedia Inspection Database System for Dynamic Runtime Evaluation.” The complaint accused the Company of infringement, inducing others to infringe, and acts of contributory infringement with respect to the patents at issue and seeks a permanent injunction, an unspecified amount of damages, and other relief as may be granted by the court. The Company filed its answer to the Vasudevan complaint and pled inequitable conduct counterclaims in March 2012. Discovery in the case is ongoing. The outcome of this matter is not presently determinable, and the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this matter at this time. Accordingly, no estimated liability for this matter has been accrued in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Company is also involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these other legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these other legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.