Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 22 Commitments and Contingencies The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. See Note 13. Supply commitments totaled $54,972 and $83,305 as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Commitments for printer assemblies and inventory items at December 31, 2018 and 2017 were $27,851 and $57,592, respectively. Commitments for operating costs and capital expenditures at December 31, 2018 and 2017 were $27,121 and $25,713, respectively. Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liability recorded for these earnouts as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $0 and $5,115, respectively. Put Options Owners of interests in the Robtec subsidiary have the right in certain circumstances to require the Company to acquire either a portion of or all of the remaining ownership interests held by them. The owners’ ability to exercise any such “put option” right is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including conditions requiring notice in advance of exercise. In addition, these rights cannot be exercised prior to a specified exercise date. The exercise of these rights at their earliest contractual date would result in obligations of the Company to fund the related amounts in 2019. Management estimates, assuming that the subsidiary owned by the Company at December 31, 2018, performs over the relevant future periods at its forecasted earnings levels, that these rights, if exercised, could require the Company, in future periods, to pay approximately $8,872 to the owners of such rights to acquire such ownership interests in the relevant subsidiary. This amount has been recorded as redeemable noncontrolling interests on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2018 and 2017. The ultimate amount payable relating to this transaction will vary because it is dependent on the future results of operations of the subject business. Indemnification In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations. To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any. Litigation Derivative Litigation Nine related derivative complaints have been filed by purported Company stockholders against certain of the Company’s former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all nine actions. The derivative complaints are styled as follows: (1) Steyn v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225, filed on July 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Steyn”); (2) Piguing v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2396, filed on August 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Piguing”); (3)Booth v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-692-RGA, filed on August 6, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; (4) Nally v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03756-MGL, filed on September 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Nally”); (5) Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC-610319, filed on February 17, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Gee”); (6) Foster v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01016-MGL, filed on April 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Foster”); (7) Lu v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC629730, filed on August 5, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Lu”); (8) Howes v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-2810-MGL, filed on August 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Howes”); and (9) Ameduri v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-02995-MGL, filed on September 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Ameduri”). Steyn and Piguing were consolidated into one action styled as In re 3D Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina. Gee and Lu were consolidated into one action styled as Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC610319 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Nally, Foster, Howes, and Ameduri were consolidated into one action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Nally as the lead consolidated case. The derivative complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and seek, among other things, monetary damages and certain corporate governance actions. All of the derivative complaints listed above have been stayed. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the Company and its officers and directors vigorously. Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, et. al. On August 23, 2013, Ronald Barranco, a former Company employee, filed two lawsuits against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The first lawsuit (“Barranco I”) is captioned Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-411 LEK RLP, and alleges seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of Print3D Corporation (of which Mr. Barranco was a 50% shareholder) and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. The second lawsuit (“Barranco II”) is captioned Ronald Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., Abraham Reichental, and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-412 LEK RLP, and alleges the same seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of certain website domains from Mr. Barranco and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. Both Barranco I and Barranco II allege the Company breached certain purchase agreements in order to avoid paying Mr. Barranco additional monies pursuant to royalty and earn out provisions in the agreements. With regard to Barranco I, the Hawaii district court, on February 28, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina for the convenience of the parties. However, the Hawaii court recognized that Barranco’s claims were all subject to mandatory and binding arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina. The parties selected an arbitrator and arbitration took place in September 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina. On September 28, 2015, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Barranco with respect to two alleged breaches of contract and implied covenants arising out of the contract. The arbitrator found that the Company did not commit fraud or make any negligent misrepresentations to Barranco. Pursuant to the award, the Company was directed to pay approximately $11,282, which includes alleged actual damages of $7,254, fees and expenses of $2,318 and prejudgment interest of $1,710. On August 3, 2018, following an unsuccessful appeal to the federal court in the Western District of North Carolina and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Company paid $9,127 of the Barranco I judgment, net setoff. On September 28, 2018, the parties filed a Consent Stipulation Resolving Motion for Setoff of Judgment, stipulating that subject only to vacatur or amendment reducing the Barranco II judgment in Barranco’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit related to the Barranco II action discussed below, the Barranco II judgment in the amount of $2,182 was setoff against the Barranco I judgment (“Stipulated Setoff”). The Company paid Barranco the $101 balance remaining due after the Stipulated Setoff. With regard to Barranco II, the case was tried to a jury in Hawaii district court in May 2016, and on May 27, 2016 the jury found that the Company was not liable for either breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on its counterclaim against Barranco and determined that Barranco violated his non-competition covenant with the Company. On March 30, 2018, the court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order requiring Barranco to disgorge, and the Company recover, $523, representing all but four months of the full amount paid to Barranco as salary during his employment with the Company as well as a portion of the up front and buyout payments made to Barranco in connection with the purchase of certain web domains. In addition, the court ordered Barranco to pay pre-judgment interest to the Company to be calculated beginning as of his first breach of the non-competition covenant in August 2011. Judgment entered thereafter on April 2, 2018. On September 13, 2018, the Hawaii district court entered its Amended Judgment in a Civil Case, awarding the Company a final amended judgment of $2,182. On September 19, 2018, Barranco filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. On January 13, 2019, Barranco filed Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Ninth Circuit. The Company’s Answering Brief is due March 15, 2019. Appellant’s optional Reply Brief is due 21 days thereafter. The Company intends to defend the appeal vigorously. Export Controls and Government Contracts Compliance Matter In October 2017 the Company received an administrative subpoena from the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce (“BIS”) requesting the production of records in connection with possible violations of U.S. export control laws, including with regard to its Quickparts.com, Inc. subsidiary. In addition, while collecting information responsive to the above-referenced subpoena, the Company identified potential violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State (“DDTC”) and potential violations of the Export Administration Regulations administered by the BIS. On June 8, 2018 and thereafter, the Company submitted voluntary disclosures to BIS and DDTC identifying numerous potentially unauthorized exports of technical data, which supplemented an initial notice of voluntary disclosure that the Company submitted to DDTC in February 2018. The Company is conducting an internal review of its export control, trade sanctions, and government contracting compliance risks and potential violations; implementing associated compliance enhancements; and cooperating with DDTC and BIS, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, the Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the U.S. government agencies. Other The Company is involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. Although the Company cannot predict the results of the litigation with certainty, the Company believes that the disposition of all these various other legal matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated results of operations, consolidated statement of cash flows or consolidated financial position.

Note 22 Commitments and Contingencies

The Company leases certain of its facilities and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases. See Note 13.

Supply commitments totaled $54,972 and $83,305 as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Commitments for printer assemblies and inventory items at December 31, 2018 and 2017 were $27,851 and $57,592, respectively. Commitments for operating costs and capital expenditures at December 31, 2018 and 2017 were $27,121 and $25,713, respectively.

Certain of the Company’s acquisitions contain earnout provisions under which the sellers of the acquired businesses can earn additional amounts. The total liability recorded for these earnouts as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $0 and $5,115, respectively.

Put Options

Owners of interests in the Robtec subsidiary have the right in certain circumstances to require the Company to acquire either a portion of or all of the remaining ownership interests held by them. The owners’ ability to exercise any such “put option” right is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including conditions requiring notice in advance of exercise. In addition, these rights cannot be exercised prior to a specified exercise date. The exercise of these rights at their earliest contractual date would result in obligations of the Company to fund the related amounts in 2019.

Management estimates, assuming that the subsidiary owned by the Company at December 31, 2018, performs over the relevant future periods at its forecasted earnings levels, that these rights, if exercised, could require the Company, in future periods, to pay approximately $8,872 to the owners of such rights to acquire such ownership interests in the relevant subsidiary. This amount has been recorded as redeemable noncontrolling interests on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2018 and 2017. The ultimate amount payable relating to this transaction will vary because it is dependent on the future results of operations of the subject business.

Indemnification

In the normal course of business, the Company periodically enters into agreements to indemnify customers or suppliers against claims of intellectual property infringement made by third parties arising from the use of the Company’s products. Historically, costs related to these indemnification provisions have not been significant, and the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential impact of these indemnification provisions on its future results of operations.

To the extent permitted under Delaware law, the Company indemnifies its directors and officers for certain events or occurrences while the director or officer is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity, subject to limited exceptions. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is unlimited; however, the Company has directors and officers insurance coverage that may enable the Company to recover future amounts paid, subject to a deductible and the policy limits. There is no assurance that the policy limits will be sufficient to cover all damages, if any.

Litigation

Derivative Litigation

Nine related derivative complaints have been filed by purported Company stockholders against certain of the Company’s former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in all nine actions. The derivative complaints are styled as follows: (1) Steyn v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225, filed on July 27, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Steyn”); (2) Piguing v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 2015-CP-46-2396, filed on August 7, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina (“Piguing”); (3)Booth v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-692-RGA, filed on August 6, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; (4) Nally v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03756-MGL, filed on September 18, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Nally”); (5) Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC-610319, filed on February 17, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Gee”); (6) Foster v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01016-MGL, filed on April 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Foster”); (7) Lu v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC629730, filed on August 5, 2016 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (“Lu”); (8) Howes v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-2810-MGL, filed on August 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Howes”); and (9) Ameduri v. Reichental, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-02995-MGL, filed on September 1, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (“Ameduri”). Steyn and Piguing were consolidated into one action styled as In re 3D Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 2015-CP-46-2225 in the Court of Common Pleas for the 16th Judicial Circuit, County of York, South Carolina. Gee and Lu were consolidated into one action styled as Gee v. Hull, et al., Case No. BC610319 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Nally, Foster, Howes, and Ameduri were consolidated into one action in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Nally as the lead consolidated case.

The derivative complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment and seek, among other things, monetary damages and certain corporate governance actions.

All of the derivative complaints listed above have been stayed.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the Company and its officers and directors vigorously.

Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, et. al.

On August 23, 2013, Ronald Barranco, a former Company employee, filed two lawsuits against the Company and certain officers in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The first lawsuit (“Barranco I”) is captioned Ronald Barranco and Print3D Corporation v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-411 LEK RLP, and alleges seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of Print3D Corporation (of which Mr. Barranco was a 50% shareholder) and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. The second lawsuit (“Barranco II”) is captioned Ronald Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems, Inc., Abraham Reichental, and Damon Gregoire, Case No. CV 13-412 LEK RLP, and alleges the same seven causes of action relating to the Company’s acquisition of certain website domains from Mr. Barranco and the subsequent employment of Mr. Barranco by the Company. Both Barranco I and Barranco II allege the Company breached certain purchase agreements in order to avoid paying Mr. Barranco additional monies pursuant to royalty and earn out provisions in the agreements.

With regard to Barranco I, the Hawaii district court, on February 28, 2014, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer venue to South Carolina for the convenience of the parties. However, the Hawaii court recognized that Barranco’s claims were all subject to mandatory and binding arbitration in Charlotte, North Carolina. The parties selected an arbitrator and arbitration took place in September 2015 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

On September 28, 2015, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of Barranco with respect to two alleged breaches of contract and implied covenants arising out of the contract. The arbitrator found that the Company did not commit fraud or make any negligent misrepresentations to Barranco. Pursuant to the award, the Company was directed to pay approximately $11,282, which includes alleged actual damages of $7,254, fees and expenses of $2,318 and prejudgment interest of $1,710.

On August 3, 2018, following an unsuccessful appeal to the federal court in the Western District of North Carolina and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Company paid $9,127 of the Barranco I judgment, net setoff. On September 28, 2018, the parties filed a Consent Stipulation Resolving Motion for Setoff of Judgment, stipulating that subject only to vacatur or amendment reducing the Barranco II judgment in Barranco’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit related to the Barranco II action discussed below, the Barranco II judgment in the amount of $2,182 was setoff against the Barranco I judgment (“Stipulated Setoff”). The Company paid Barranco the $101 balance remaining due after the Stipulated Setoff.

With regard to Barranco II, the case was tried to a jury in Hawaii district court in May 2016, and on May 27, 2016 the jury found that the Company was not liable for either breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the Company on its counterclaim against Barranco and determined that Barranco violated his non-competition covenant with the Company. On March 30, 2018, the court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order requiring Barranco to disgorge, and the Company recover, $523, representing all but four months of the full amount paid to Barranco as salary during his employment with the Company as well as a portion of the up front and buyout payments made to Barranco in connection with the purchase of certain web domains. In addition, the court ordered Barranco to pay pre-judgment interest to the Company to be calculated beginning as of his first breach of the non-competition covenant in August 2011. Judgment entered thereafter on April 2, 2018.

On September 13, 2018, the Hawaii district court entered its Amended Judgment in a Civil Case, awarding the Company a final amended judgment of $2,182. On September 19, 2018, Barranco filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. On January 13, 2019, Barranco filed Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Ninth Circuit. The Company’s Answering Brief is due March 15, 2019. Appellant’s optional Reply Brief is due 21 days thereafter. The Company intends to defend the appeal vigorously.

Export Controls and Government Contracts Compliance Matter

In October 2017 the Company received an administrative subpoena from the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce (“BIS”) requesting the production of records in connection with possible violations of U.S. export control laws, including with regard to its Quickparts.com, Inc. subsidiary. In addition, while collecting information responsive to the above-referenced subpoena, the Company identified potential violations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State (“DDTC”) and potential violations of the Export Administration Regulations administered by the BIS.

On June 8, 2018 and thereafter, the Company submitted voluntary disclosures to BIS and DDTC identifying numerous potentially unauthorized exports of technical data, which supplemented an initial notice of voluntary disclosure that the Company submitted to DDTC in February 2018. The Company is conducting an internal review of its export control, trade sanctions, and government contracting compliance risks and potential violations; implementing associated compliance enhancements; and cooperating with DDTC and BIS, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security. Although the Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, the Company has incurred and expects to continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the U.S. government agencies.

Other

The Company is involved in various other legal matters incidental to its business. Although the Company cannot predict the results of the litigation with certainty, the Company believes that the disposition of all these various other legal matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on its consolidated results of operations, consolidated statement of cash flows or consolidated financial position.