Is the Leica M mount patented?

[cfrye]

I know that the M mount is obviously Leica's proprietary lens mount, but did companies like Konica (with the M-mount Hexar RF), Zeiss (also M-mount with the ZM), or Voigtlander/Cosina (Bessa rangefinders) have to pay Leica to use that mount on their cameras? Or is it more like public domain, industry standard sort of thing?

 

[trendland]

Yes of course it is protected via patent. But after Cosima (later some other companies did it afaik)
broke Leica patent from using m- mount it seems so patent went of!
The case from Cosima was the Voigtländer camera series with m39 (guess that wasn't able to be patented) but suddenly they changed to first M-mount (2002 if I remember correct)!
This should be done after the patend went of (50 years)!


with regards

PS : The guys at Leica became massive angry (belive me)!

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Patents expire after 20 years, after which the invention becomes public domain and anyone can manufacture products using it. The Leica M mount was invented almost 70 years ago, the patent is long-expired.

 

[guangong]

Chris is correct. In fact, there is probably nothing on any camera that hasn’t been patented at some time, form the camera loading latch to the shape of the advance lever, and everything in between.
Look at the early work arounds to avoid Leitz shutter patents.

 

[trendland]

Patents expire after 20 years, after which the invention becomes public domain and anyone can manufacture products using it. The Leica M mount was invented almost 70 years ago, the patent is long-expired.

Chris is correct. In fact, there is probably nothing on any camera that hasn’t been patented at some time, form the camera loading latch to the shape of the advance lever, and everything in between.
Look at the early work arounds to avoid Leitz shutter patents.

This 20 years rule is just in general! In fact it is indeed max. 50years! Leica had some guys wich were able to longer the patent ! I guess they completed some technical parameters!
Cosina wasn't able to pay for m-mount and Leica was not willing to give licence!
So there was a need of M39 there it is not possible to patent!

Beliive me - but you are right with 20 years in normal case and from my point 50years is the absolute max.

with regards

 

[guangong]

This 20 years rule is just in general! In fact it is indeed max. 50years! Leica had some guys wich were able to longer the patent ! I guess they completed some technical parameters!
Cosina wasn't able to pay for m-mount and Leica was not willing to give licence!
So there was a need of M39 there it is not possible to patent!

Beliive me - but you are right with 20 years in normal case and from my point 50years is the absolute max.

with regards

I bought my first M mount camera in 1960, well over 50; yrs ago. The patent on M mount expired quite some time ago. As well as Nikon mount, Zeiss mount.
The sanest mount is that for digital 4/3 cameras. How and why all manufacturers agreed to the same standard is a modern day miracle.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
The sanest mount is that for digital 4/3 cameras. How and why all manufacturers agreed to the same standard is a modern day miracle.

Just a guess, but perhaps the m4/3 manufacturers decided to band together for the overall benefit of the format rather than have everyone wither away with a multitude of different mounts.

 

[Jim Jones]

Long before the m4/3 revolution there were nearly standard size lens boards. Many large format cameras used them up to a few decades ago.

 

[AgX]

This 20 years rule is just in general! In fact it is indeed max. 50years! Leica had some guys wich were able to longer the patent ! I guess they completed some technical parameters!

Which legal system yields patent protection longer than 20 years?

One cannot prolonge a patent by adding something to it.

By the way the actual life-time of a patent at average is much shorter. (Patent owner decides not to pay fees any longer as it became uneconomic as either the product was not succesful on the market or work-arounds emerged.)

 

[Arklatexian]

I know that the M mount is obviously Leica's proprietary lens mount, but did companies like Konica (with the M-mount Hexar RF), Zeiss (also M-mount with the ZM), or Voigtlander/Cosina (Bessa rangefinders) have to pay Leica to use that mount on their cameras? Or is it more like public domain, industry standard sort of thing?

Patents, unlike copyrights, have a lifespan here in the U.S. I

I know that the M mount is obviously Leica's proprietary lens mount, but did companies like Konica (with the M-mount Hexar RF), Zeiss (also M-mount with the ZM), or Voigtlander/Cosina (Bessa rangefinders) have to pay Leica to use that mount on their cameras? Or is it more like public domain, industry standard sort of thing?

Leica is the place to ask that question. There is a period of time here in the U.S. where the inventor is protected and that period can be extended. I would imagine that their patent here in the U.S. (if they patented it here or if Germany and the USA have an agreement where each other's patents are recognized) ran out a long time ago. Of course if Leica made changes to the mount, I would assume those were patented also. A patent lawyer would possibly know........Regards!

 

[AgX]

Patents, unlike copyrights, have a lifespan here in the U.S.

Copyrights are limited too.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Copyrights are limited too.

Not as much as Patents. In Australia and New Zealand, copyright lasts for the life of the author and for 50 years afterward. That limitation alone though goes out the window if an estate claims perpetual copyright -- numerous such examples here in Australia.

 

[AgX]

In Australia and New Zealand copyright lasts for the life of the author and for 50 years afterward.

Thus they are limited!
As in the rest of the world.

 

[trendland]

Which legal system yields patent protection longer than 20 years?

One cannot prolonge a patent by adding something to it.

By the way the actual life-time of a patent at average is much shorter. (Patent owner decides not to pay fees any longer as it became uneconomic as either the product was not succesful on the market or work-arounds emerged.)

AgX - I am no expert in patent rights - as we all together - I guess......
But just from remind to M-mout there have been some cooperations from Leica and Minolta years before modern viewfinders with M-mount came up! There (in case with Minolta) some technology transferes between them have been done. So there is allways a way for cooperation if compaies come together - if not there are some additional ways for protection of technology inovations.
So one may state "both is rights" : Normal use from patent is max. 20 years (but that just not be the case ) From logical concern I could imagine that a new patent came up before the original patent is comming of! Then -wy not b.t.w. - it is true (after 20years) the patent protection is off!
But in case of M-mount there might be a New patent ? I can't say???!
If the specification of the patent in original form to M-mount (~ 1950) have been completed 1970 - it could be possible from my point that up to 1990 a new protection have been?
More possible seams the case that Leica M-mount patent went of ~ 1970/71 but at this time no company beside Leica have had interests? And there was a new patent some times later from 70/71 with more specified and additional (changed) technical parameters?
Beside other protections (copyright,trademark,design protection)!
For sure 2001 (Cosima) all protections went of (and Leica wasn't able to earn money with or have
any chance to restrict the use of M-mount)!
From my point the patent of M39 isn't possible :

that would also answer the question of M42 standard during the 50s/60s

But AgX you are totally right (today such extensive protection is not possible any longer for technical inovations)
The circles of patent protection came shorter because technical change is much more faster AND
new patents should be given for max. 2 - 5 years from my point (in parts it exactly goes in that direction)
In summary : The 20years rule is still efective for patents but in fact most new high tech patents came for shorter value! Exeption : Big companies - they are able to do anything -
like we discussed here with Leica!

with regards

 

[swchris]

M39, if I'm not wrong, originated from before end of WWII. And, AFAIK, all German patents from before were then in fact disfunct, in other words, there was no authority to enforce them. See the many Contax or Leica clones from (former) SU (which probably didn't care for any patents anyway) and Japanese clones (Nikon S for example).

 

[trendland]

M39, if I'm not wrong, originated from before end of WWII. And, AFAIK, all German patents from before were then in fact disfunct, in other words, there was no authority to enforce them. See the many Contax or Leica clones from (former) SU (which probably didn't care for any patents anyway) and Japanese clones (Nikon S for example).

Perhaps Leica made a deal within the 30s to get a patent "M39" 01.04.1931 from "Königlich Bayrischen Patentamt"

with regards

 

[Wallendo]

Patents have a limited lifespan which varies by country, however, Trademarks are perpetual as long as the trademark owner actively enforces them. So, in this case, if Leica had defended their "M-mount" trademark, other companies could make an M-mount, but would have to call it something else.

 

[AgX]

As said one cannot prolong a patent by later adding something. But yes, one could file a new patent, that is based on the old one but adds something new and patentworthy.

Examples:

The M42 mount was introduced by KW. (No idea of a patent, and Zeiss Ikon was involved too).
The M42 Electric mount by successor Pentocon for sure was a patentworthy evolution.

Canon R>FL>FD mounts

 

[Arklatexian]

Copyrights are limited too.

Here in the U.S. some copyrights are renewable by the heirs of the person to whom the copyright was issued. I have copyrights of some movies in mind that are renewed by the company to whom the original copyright was issued.......Regards!

 

[AgX]

Copyright legislation differs in approach basically between the USA and continental Europe.
However the US got time limits as Europe. And these cannot be extended.

However as in the past in the US the copyright had to be registered, you probably refer to a re-registration, that though would not have proplonged the rights beyond the basic time limits.

 

[abruzzi]

However the US got time limits as Europe. And these cannot be extended.

Except with carefully applied campaign donations.

https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/

 

[AgX]

Well, prolonging the duration of rights beyond a legal limit, by getting the law changed is beyond what I was referring to.

A interesting case you hint at, but in that whole article there is only one very vague sentence stating Disney was involved in that change of law in their favour, in contrast to its promising title...

 

[trendland]

Well, prolonging the duration of rights beyond a legal limit, by getting the law changed is beyond what I was referring to.

A interesting case you hint at, but in that whole article there is only one very vague sentence stating Disney was involved in that change of law in their favour, in contrast to its promising title...

There is an other example of a company who brake the barier of 20years patent protection!
Till??? Around 2000 -then there came up some companies out of Asia with L E G A L copies !
You probably will know this company Agx : Lego !

with regards

 

[AgX]

Not at all.
The Lego Patent ended after those 20 years.

However after further 20 years Lego got the the idea of getting their brick registered as trademark. Which means by registering a pure technical thing banning competitors at least from visualizing their bricks. Of course this called for critique. And after further 14 years European Court decided that such registration was not valid.

So you have been mislead.
But this example shows that there are several ways to at least for some years give competitors a hard time.
And though this court decision is 9 years old just recently Lego made a claim against a tiny one-man business selling such bricks and using such brick as the firm's logo.

 

[trendland]

Not at all.
The Lego Patent ended after those 20 years.

However after further 20 years Lego got the the idea of getting their brick registered as trademark. Which means by registering a pure technical thing banning competitors at least from visualizing their bricks. Of course this called for critique. And after further 14 years European Court decided that such registration was not valid.

So you have been mislead.
But this example shows that there are several ways to at least for some years give competitors a hard time.
And though this court decision is 9 years old just recently Lego made a claim against a tiny one-man business selling such bricks and using such brick as the firm's logo.

I know - but there was a misstake in my post # 23

I wrote : a company..... broke ...the barier of 20 years patent protection!

After that I decided to write better .....broke...barier of 20 years protection!

but it was too late............sure Agx would come up next....!

Seriously Agx you noticed the issue with Lego : They spent milllions for best lawyers they find in Europe, they cherry picked all laws there were avaible for their intention to make Lego protected for ever!
That was also the method of Leica - it seams to be so!

with regards

At last "Chineese law" is winning!! = All copying of all is legal if Chineese party leadership give
the OK!