At that time, Minolta and Leica had a cooperative relationship and each took what he needed. At first, Leica cooperated with Minolta. Minolta produced CL camera with M-mount, and Leica produced 28/2.8, 40/2 and 90/4 lenses matching CL. Because CL can't make money playing Leica logo Minolta, Leica also agrees that Minolta will produce CL cameras with Minolta LOGO and three supporting lenses, but only allowed to be sold in Japan. Just because the popularity of CL camera directly affected the sales of Leica M5, Leica was forced to terminate the CL cooperation with Minolta. It is estimated that the contract signed by both parties should have a certain period of time. Although Leica terminated its cooperation, Minolta still has the right to produce M-ring cameras. In return for canceling the cooperation, Leica should acquiesce in Minolta's continued use of M-mount and be able to sell it around the world, so there was the later Minolta CLE. In addition to the first generation produced by Leica, the matching lenses are also produced by Minolta, and the design structure of the lenses comes from Leica. It can be said that Leica is not willing to find this cooperation, so how can we find Minolta to file a lawsuit?
Even if Leica has the cheek to go to Minolta for a lawsuit, it may not win. Konica has also produced cameras with M-mount, so has Flanda and Zeiss, but all of them have made a slight improvement on the basis of M-mount. At that time, the patent law was not as harsh as it is now. Konica's name is KM bayonet, which is 1MM away from Leica's bayonet flange. As long as the aperture is F2, the depth of field has covered the influence caused by the flange distance of 1MM; Similarly, Fu Lunda's VM bayonet and Zeiss' ZM bayonet all use this form to edge the ball, as do Minolta's CL and CLE, and the flange distance is slightly different, which makes Leica hard to blame.