Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
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 primarily relate to agreements 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 generally 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 does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its balance sheets as of September 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012. On March 15, 2013, the Company completed the sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Angel.com, pursuant to a stock purchase and sale agreement, which contains certain customary seller representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions. 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 and licenses certain software under other financing arrangements. Under the lease 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 term of the lease expires in December 2020. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, deferred rent of $20.7 million and $22.7 million, respectively, is included in other long-term liabilities, and $2.8 million and $2.5 million, respectively, is included in current accrued expenses. *(b) Contingencies* 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 Business Intelligence Platform^TM, MicroStrategy 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 sought an unspecified amount of damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. In October 2012, the case was 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 was not a party. Final judgment in that separate action was entered against DataTern in December 2012. In February 2013, MicroStrategy and DataTern filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement in light of the New York judgment and the Court entered summary judgment against DataTern. In March 2013, DataTern filed a notice of appeal. The Company filed its brief in opposition on July 25, 2013, and DataTern filed its reply brief on August 12, 2013. The appeal has not yet been scheduled for oral argument. The Company has 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 sought 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. On June 5, 2013, each party filed motions for summary judgment, and the court heard arguments regarding these motions on July 25, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the court issued a claims construction clarification order. Vasudevan has stated that this order meant that it could not prove infringement and filed a stipulation of non-infringement on October 16, 2013. Following Vasudevan’s stipulation, on October 17, 2013, the court dismissed the case, entered judgment of non-infringement based upon Vasudevan’s stipulation, and also granted MicroStrategy’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding the four patents in the suit invalid. Vasudevan is likely to appeal the court’s claims construction clarification order and invalidity judgment. The outcome of this matter on appeal 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 primarily relate to agreements 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 generally 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 does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its balance sheets as of September 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012.

On March 15, 2013, the Company completed the sale of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Angel.com, pursuant to a stock purchase and sale agreement, which contains certain customary seller representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions.

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 and licenses certain software under other financing arrangements. Under the lease 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 term of the lease expires in December 2020. At September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, deferred rent of $20.7 million and $22.7 million, respectively, is included in other long-term liabilities, and $2.8 million and $2.5 million, respectively, is included in current accrued expenses.

(b) Contingencies

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 Business Intelligence Platform^TM, MicroStrategy 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 sought an unspecified amount of damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. In October 2012, the case was 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 was not a party. Final judgment in that separate action was entered against DataTern in December 2012. In February 2013, MicroStrategy and DataTern filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement in light of the New York judgment and the Court entered summary judgment against DataTern. In March 2013, DataTern filed a notice of appeal. The Company filed its brief in opposition on July 25, 2013, and DataTern filed its reply brief on August 12, 2013. The appeal has not yet been scheduled for oral argument. The Company has 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 sought 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. On June 5, 2013, each party filed motions for summary judgment, and the court heard arguments regarding these motions on July 25, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the court issued a claims construction clarification order. Vasudevan has stated that this order meant that it could not prove infringement and filed a stipulation of non-infringement on October 16, 2013. Following Vasudevan’s stipulation, on October 17, 2013, the court dismissed the case, entered judgment of non-infringement based upon Vasudevan’s stipulation, and also granted MicroStrategy’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding the four patents in the suit invalid. Vasudevan is likely to appeal the court’s claims construction clarification order and invalidity judgment. The outcome of this matter on appeal 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.