Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	6. Commitments and Contingencies *Legal Matters* -On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the "ECB Litigation"). The Company brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. The Company alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringed the Company's European Patent 0 455 750B1 (the "Patent") which covered a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced by the ECB before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement (the "Trebuchet Agreement") with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC ("Trebuchet") under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement. In consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allowed Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. On July 7, 2011, Trebuchet and the Company entered into a series of related agreements and general releases wherein Trebuchet effectively ended its ongoing participation in the ECB Litigation, except for its continuing involvement in the final settlement of fees that may become payable as a result of the infringement case in The Netherlands described below. The Trebuchet Agreement executed in August 2008 will remain in full force and effect, in its entirety, until Trebuchet makes any and all final payments that may become due in connection with The Netherlands infringement case. In a series of court decisions spanning from March 2007 through December 2010, the Patent was invalidated in each of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Italy. The Company did not further appeal these decisions. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The ECB appealed the ruling in Spain, and the appeal hearing was held on April 4, 2013. A decision is expected in the second quarter of 2013. During the course of the litigation, the losing party in the ECB Litigation, in certain jurisdictions, was responsible for the prevailing party's legal fees and disbursements. As of March 31, 2013, pursuant to foreign judgments for costs and fees, the Company has recorded as accrued liabilities approximately €159,000 ($204,000) for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 ($224,000) for the Netherlands case for such fees. In February 2013, the ECB filed an action in the United States District Court, Western District of New York to domesticate the amounts due in the Germany proceeding. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg which amounts to €93,752 ($120,000) as of March 31, 2013, which, unless the amount is settled, will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable. On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. The Netherlands Court determined in December 2010 that the patent was invalid in The Netherlands, and the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet remains responsible for cost and fee reimbursements associated with the case when such amounts are determined and fixed by order of the Dutch Court. On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a law suit against Coupons.com Incorporated ("Coupons.com"). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and is seeking in excess of $10 million in money damages from Coupons.com for those claims. In a motions decision rendered on August 20, 2012, the District Court judge dismissed the Company's unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims. The Company's breach of contract claim remains intact as of the date of this report. In addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition. *Merger Termination Fees* - Pursuant to the Company's Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") with Lexington, as amended, , if the Merger Agreement is terminated at any time prior to the closing of the Merger, as follows: (a) by mutual written consent of DSS, Merger Sub and Lexington; (b) by either party in the event the Merger has not closed by the later of (i) May 21, 2013 or (ii) if the Registration Statement containing the Proxy Statement has been declared effective by the SEC prior to May 21, 2013, the first business day following the date of DSS's Special Meeting (including any adjournments or postponements), but no later than June 30, 2013; (c) by either DSS or Lexington if any law enacted by a governmental authority prohibits the consummation of the Merger, or any governmental authority has issued an order or taken any other action which restrains, enjoins or otherwise prohibits the Merger; (d) by either DSS or Lexington if the other party's stockholders do not approve the Merger, unless the failure to obtain approval is attributable to a failure on the part of such party seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement; (e) by DSS if (i) the Lexington's board of directors changes its recommendation for approval of the Merger, (ii) the board of directors of Lexington or any authorized committee has failed to present or recommend the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger to the stockholders, (iii) Lexington shall have entered or caused itself or its subsidiaries to enter, into any letter of intent, agreement in principle, term sheet, merger agreement, acquisition agreement or other similar agreement related to any Lexington Acquisition Proposal or (iv) Lexington shall have breached any term of the non-solicitation provision of the Merger Agreement; (f) by Lexington if (i) the DSS board of directors changes their recommendation for approval of the Merger, (ii) the board of directors of DSS or any authorized committee has failed to present or recommend the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger to the stockholders, (iii) DSS shall have entered or caused itself or its subsidiaries to enter, into any letter of intent, agreement in principle, term sheet, merger agreement, acquisition agreement or other similar agreement related to any DSS Acquisition Proposal or (iv) DSS shall have breached any term of the non-solicitation provision of the Merger Agreement; (g) by either party if the other party, or in the case of Lexington, DSS or Merger Sub, is in material breach of its obligations or representations or warranties under the Merger Agreement; (h) by either DSS or Lexington if prior to obtaining stockholder approval such party determines to enter into a definitive agreement relating to a superior proposal; or (i) by Lexington, at any time, upon payment to DSS of a fee equal to $5,000,000. Under certain circumstances, if the Merger Agreement is terminated by either DSS or Lexington, then DSS shall pay to Lexington, a termination fee in cash equal to the sum of (i) $3,000,000 plus (ii) 5% of the consideration paid to all security holders of DSS in connection with a superior proposal in the same form as such consideration is paid to such security holders. *Contingent Litigation Payments* - Pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties derived from patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. In addition, in May 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company's litigation with the European Central Bank which called for a $150,000 contingent payment to the legal counsel upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company's behalf in that litigation. As of March 31, 2013, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements. The Company has a legal fee agreement with Niro, Haller & Niro in connection with its lawsuit against Coupons.com. Under the agreement, the Company would pay Niro, Haller & Niro 33% of any settlements or damages awards collected from Coupons.com in connection with the suit. Under the agreement, the Company is responsible for payment of out-of-pocket charges and disbursements of Niro, Haller & Niro necessarily accrued during the prosecution of the suit. This fee agreement replaced an agreement the Company had with Nixon Peabody LLP, the Company's former legal counsel on the Coupons.com litigation. *Contingent Purchase Price* -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of March 31, 2013, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote. *Related Party Consulting Payments* - During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company paid approximately $47,000 in consulting fees to Patrick White, its former CEO, under a consulting agreement that will expire in March 2015.

6. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters -On August 1, 2005, the Company commenced a suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg against the ECB alleging patent infringement by the ECB and claimed unspecified damages (the "ECB Litigation"). The Company brought the suit in the European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. The Company alleged that all Euro banknotes in circulation infringed the Company's European Patent 0 455 750B1 (the "Patent") which covered a method of incorporating an anti-counterfeiting feature into banknotes or similar security documents to protect against forgeries by digital scanning and copying devices. The Court of First Instance in Luxembourg ruled on September 5, 2007 that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on the patent infringement claim. In 2006, the Company received notices that the ECB had filed separate claims in each of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Austria and Luxembourg courts seeking the invalidation of the Patent. Proceedings were commenced by the ECB before each of the national courts seeking revocation and declarations of invalidity of the Patent. On August 20, 2008, the Company entered into an agreement (the "Trebuchet Agreement") with Trebuchet Capital Partners, LLC ("Trebuchet") under which Trebuchet agreed to pay substantially all of the litigation costs associated with validity proceedings in eight European countries relating to the Patent. The Company provided Trebuchet with the sole and exclusive right to manage infringement litigation relating to the Patent in Europe, including the right to initiate litigation in the name of the Company, Trebuchet or both and to choose whom and where to sue, subject to certain limitations set forth in the Trebuchet Agreement. In consideration for Trebuchet's funding obligations, the Company assigned and transferred a 49% interest in the Company's rights, title and interest in the Patent to Trebuchet which allowed Trebuchet to have a separate and distinct interest in and share of the Patent, along with the right to sue and recover in litigation, settlement or otherwise and to collect royalties or other payments under or on account of the Patent. In addition, the Company and Trebuchet agreed to equally share all proceeds generated from litigation relating to the Patent, including judgments and licenses or other arrangements entered into in settlement of any such litigation. On July 7, 2011, Trebuchet and the Company entered into a series of related agreements and general releases wherein Trebuchet effectively ended its ongoing participation in the ECB Litigation, except for its continuing involvement in the final settlement of fees that may become payable as a result of the infringement case in The Netherlands described below. The Trebuchet Agreement executed in August 2008 will remain in full force and effect, in its entirety, until Trebuchet makes any and all final payments that may become due in connection with The Netherlands infringement case.

In a series of court decisions spanning from March 2007 through December 2010, the Patent was invalidated in each of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Italy. The Company did not further appeal these decisions. On March 24, 2010 the Spanish Court ruled that the Patent was valid. The ECB appealed the ruling in Spain, and the appeal hearing was held on April 4, 2013. A decision is expected in the second quarter of 2013.

During the course of the litigation, the losing party in the ECB Litigation, in certain jurisdictions, was responsible for the prevailing party's legal fees and disbursements. As of March 31, 2013, pursuant to foreign judgments for costs and fees, the Company has recorded as accrued liabilities approximately €159,000 ($204,000) for the Germany case and approximately €175,000 ($224,000) for the Netherlands case for such fees. In February 2013, the ECB filed an action in the United States District Court, Western District of New York to domesticate the amounts due in the Germany proceeding. In addition, the ECB formally requested the Company to pay attorneys and court fees for the Court of First Instance case in Luxembourg which amounts to €93,752 ($120,000) as of March 31, 2013, which, unless the amount is settled, will be subject to an assessment procedure that has not been initiated. The Company will accrue the assessed amount, if any, as soon as it is reasonably estimable.

On February 18, 2010, Trebuchet, on behalf of the Company, filed an infringement suit in the Netherlands against the ECB and two security printing entities with manufacturing operations in the Netherlands, Joh. Enschede Banknotes B.V and Koninklijke Joh. Enschede B.V. The Netherlands Court determined in December 2010 that the patent was invalid in The Netherlands, and the infringement case was terminated by Trebuchet. Trebuchet remains responsible for cost and fee reimbursements associated with the case when such amounts are determined and fixed by order of the Dutch Court.

On October 24, 2011 the Company initiated a law suit against Coupons.com Incorporated ("Coupons.com"). The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of New York, located in Rochester, New York. Coupons.com is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. In the Coupons.com suit, the Company alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and unjust enrichment, and is seeking in excess of $10 million in money damages from Coupons.com for those claims. In a motions decision rendered on August 20, 2012, the District Court judge dismissed the Company's unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims. The Company's breach of contract claim remains intact as of the date of this report.

In addition to the foregoing, we are subject to other legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and have not been finally adjudicated. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, in the opinion of management, none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party, whether discussed herein or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or our financial condition.

Merger Termination Fees - Pursuant to the Company's Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") with Lexington, as amended, , if the Merger Agreement is terminated at any time prior to the closing of the Merger, as follows: (a) by mutual written consent of DSS, Merger Sub and Lexington; (b) by either party in the event the Merger has not closed by the later of (i) May 21, 2013 or (ii) if the Registration Statement containing the Proxy Statement has been declared effective by the SEC prior to May 21, 2013, the first business day following the date of DSS's Special Meeting (including any adjournments or postponements), but no later than June 30, 2013; (c) by either DSS or Lexington if any law enacted by a governmental authority prohibits the consummation of the Merger, or any governmental authority has issued an order or taken any other action which restrains, enjoins or otherwise prohibits the Merger; (d) by either DSS or Lexington if the other party's stockholders do not approve the Merger, unless the failure to obtain approval is attributable to a failure on the part of such party seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement; (e) by DSS if (i) the Lexington's board of directors changes its recommendation for approval of the Merger, (ii) the board of directors of Lexington or any authorized committee has failed to present or recommend the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger to the stockholders, (iii) Lexington shall have entered or caused itself or its subsidiaries to enter, into any letter of intent, agreement in principle, term sheet, merger agreement, acquisition agreement or other similar agreement related to any Lexington Acquisition Proposal or (iv) Lexington shall have breached any term of the non-solicitation provision of the Merger Agreement; (f) by Lexington if (i) the DSS board of directors changes their recommendation for approval of the Merger, (ii) the board of directors of DSS or any authorized committee has failed to present or recommend the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger to the stockholders, (iii) DSS shall have entered or caused itself or its subsidiaries to enter, into any letter of intent, agreement in principle, term sheet, merger agreement, acquisition agreement or other similar agreement related to any DSS Acquisition Proposal or (iv) DSS shall have breached any term of the non-solicitation provision of the Merger Agreement; (g) by either party if the other party, or in the case of Lexington, DSS or Merger Sub, is in material breach of its obligations or representations or warranties under the Merger Agreement; (h) by either DSS or Lexington if prior to obtaining stockholder approval such party determines to enter into a definitive agreement relating to a superior proposal; or (i) by Lexington, at any time, upon payment to DSS of a fee equal to $5,000,000. Under certain circumstances, if the Merger Agreement is terminated by either DSS or Lexington, then DSS shall pay to Lexington, a termination fee in cash equal to the sum of (i) $3,000,000 plus (ii) 5% of the consideration paid to all security holders of DSS in connection with a superior proposal in the same form as such consideration is paid to such security holders.

Contingent Litigation Payments - Pursuant to an agreement made in December 2004, the Company is required to share the economic benefit derived from settlements, licenses or subsequent business arrangements that the Company obtains from any infringer of patents formerly owned by the Wicker Family. For infringement matters involving certain U.S. patents, the Company will be required to disburse 30% of the settlement proceeds. For infringement matters involving certain foreign patents, the Company will be required to disburse 14% of the settlement proceeds. These payments do not apply to licenses or royalties derived from patents that the Company has developed or obtained from persons other than the Wicker Family. In addition, in May 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with its legal counsel in charge of the Company's litigation with the European Central Bank which called for a $150,000 contingent payment to the legal counsel upon a successful ruling or settlement on the Company's behalf in that litigation. As of March 31, 2013, there has been no settlement amounts related to these agreements.

The Company has a legal fee agreement with Niro, Haller & Niro in connection with its lawsuit against Coupons.com. Under the agreement, the Company would pay Niro, Haller & Niro 33% of any settlements or damages awards collected from Coupons.com in connection with the suit. Under the agreement, the Company is responsible for payment of out-of-pocket charges and disbursements of Niro, Haller & Niro necessarily accrued during the prosecution of the suit. This fee agreement replaced an agreement the Company had with Nixon Peabody LLP, the Company's former legal counsel on the Coupons.com litigation.

Contingent Purchase Price -In December, 2008, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of DPI of Rochester, LLC in which the Company guaranteed up to $50,000 to certain parties depending on whether certain conditions occurred within five years of the acquisition. As of March 31, 2013, the Company considers the likelihood that the payment will be required as remote.

Related Party Consulting Payments - During the three months ended March 31, 2013, the Company paid approximately $47,000 in consulting fees to Patrick White, its former CEO, under a consulting agreement that will expire in March 2015.