Getting Fed Up With MapSource Unlock

Real simple. The unlock software would remove all maps on the GPS and
present you with a new code that could never be used again on the GPS
that you unlocked. This would probably mean Garmin would have to keep a
database of locked and unlocked serial numbers for you.

Garmin's practice is unfair period. The only reason they can do it is
none to little competition.

What happens if the honest guy has his GPS stolen or lost and has
already used up his two unlocks across to devices? It's bad enough he
is out a GPS now he is whacked for maps too?

The PC industry went through this problem years ago with special disks
that needed to be inserted or dongles. The public finally said ENOUGH
and the software manufactures were forced to remove those protections.

So the real answer of how do they make sure the maps aren't on more than
one GPS? They don't, they take their chances with piracy just like the
rest of the software industry.

Bruce

--
Bruce E. Stemplewski
GarXface OCX and C++ Class Library for the Garmin GPS
#

He wants to do the right thing, as most Americans would do, contrary
to what you might believe. You really should not but much credence
behind stereotypes.

--
Bruce E. Stemplewski
GarXface OCX and C++ Class Library for the Garmin GPS
#

As I recall, Metroguide for at least some regions did not need an uinlock
code. You just installed it on your PC and copied the maps to your Garmin.

On 14 Apr 2006 03:58:28 GMT, Seagull <> wrote:

But since you can't, you'd rather go without a solution? Your
nose, your face.

If the present practice is generally regarded as grossly unfair, then why is
he looking for a "legal" way to unlock maps which he considers to grossly
unfairly "locked"? Why not just ignore the legal issues and trust to the
good old American sense of justice?

Great. iTunes for GPS.

No thanks. I'd rather be able to load new mapsets without having to
get permission from Garmin each time.

Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
# \ (seize the guinea pig!)

Since lock codes are tied to the hardware, it is a hardware issue.
Once you generate a lock code, the software instance and the hardware
are forever linked. Hence, you /have/ sold both. That it still
resides on yoru computer is irrelevant.

Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
# \ (seize the guinea pig!)

I feel this will be very relevant; even if I have to pay some administration
costs.

I have a Metroguide originally unlocked to my SPIII and Etrex Vista which
was applicable for my use in a car and a handheld. Now I have additionally
the Etrex Vista C and the GPS60Csx which do not have the maps. Quite
frustrating.

...

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:58:07 -0700, Dale DePriest

It's trivial -- a Simple Matter of Programming (tm). I've used
software on a PC which is locked to a license, but can be transferred
among machines. At installation time, you are given what is called a
request key. You transmit the request key and license number to the
vendor. In return, you get a response key, which is entered into the
software. If you want to move the software to another machine, you ask
it for a revoke key, which disables the software on that machine. You
send the revoke key to the vendor, who records the license available
for reinstallation.

When you install on a new machine, a new request key is
generated by the installer. Send it to the vendor and receive a new
response key to enter to activate the sofware on the new machine.

It's a very fast turnaround process, done by fax, email or on
the phone.

For maximum availability, it can be done in a single short
call. You install the software on the new machine, call the vendor,
generate the revoke key on the old machine, read it to the customer
rep and read him the request key generated on the new machine. He
enters the revoke key to free up the license, then enters the new
request key and reads you back the new response key, still associated
with the same license. You're back in business in no time at all.

This take care of the legitimate needs of both vendor and
customer, as only a small cost to convenience. It would also allow for
the situation where a user could choose to sell the old unit either
with the unlock codes for the buyer to use or with the codes revoked
so the buyer copuld make his own arrangement with Garmin while the
seller continued to make use od his original unlock codes on a new
unit.

If you can send an unlocked unit to Garmin for repair and they
elect to replace it with a unit with a different serial, but still
allow you to make use of your purchased, unlocked maps, this would
show that all the serial-number/unlock-code shuffling is technically
feasible and it is solely a matter of policy/contract between Garmin
and NAVTEQ.

Not always true. My SP-III and one of my handhelds came with unlockable
maps. Now some come with the maps installed.

When I sold my 60C, I sold it with the maps and use a different set in
my 60Cx.

You've got it!

Phil

Do you really think anyone (besides a lawyer) in the history of
computing has *ever* read a licensing agreement? The odds of that are
less than a male reading instructions or asking for directions.

You don't. However, I have to agree with Stephen. There is something
decidedly unfair to the user under the current arrangement. The Maps
are sold separately from the unit. The map76CS box even says the maps
are an optional accessory. If the maps must stay with the unit, they
should be sold with the unit.

The fact that some of the maps are in the unit seems pretty trivial to
me - especially for the older units. Even my 76CS doesn't hold much of
the USA unless I use a very old map set that doesn't offer auto-routing.
Furthermore, the second owner would have to have their own map
software to get much more than local use out of the unit.

I see that there is no easy solution, but looks like some consumers will
get screwed if they buy a new GPSR. And, it isn't obvious when you buy
it that this will happen.

Arthur Hass
Reston, VA

If it makes you feel any better, that's what they tell everyone.

You shoulda read the license agreement, and then sold the City Select with one
of the other units.

No problem; first because there are no unlock codes for Garmin topo
maps (either the US or the National Park series) and second because
even the maps that do have unlock codes allow you to use them on two
GPS receivers.

The source for that map data is the USGS, and they, presumably since
they've already been paid by the taxpayers, are less restrictive on
licensing their data than is NavTeq.
Therefore Garmin doesn't need to include unlock code protection for
those maps and they choose not to do so.

Since you presumably had to go through the unlocking procedure to use
the CS-NA maps you would know that the maps are tied to the specific
serial numbers of the receivers. So why didn't you sell the maps along
with the one of the receivers?

Of course then you'd need to ship both units to Garmin, they'd have to
modify them to have a different serial number and then ship them back
to you. Sounds rather expensive and time consuming compared to the
alternative of recouping part of your map expense by selling the maps
along with the receiver.

Presumably the impetus behind the unlock policy is NavTeq since they're
the ones with the most to lose if the map data becomes freely
available. But since they currently have the best auto-routing map
data they are able to dictate such restrictive terms in their
contractual arrangements with Garmin/Magellan/etc.

For the same reason that anyone makes any business decision - when
weighing all the costs and benefits it was felt to be the best option
available.

I had to send my map76CS back to Garmin due to a rocker key malfunction.
They sent me a new unit (different serial number). I later loaded
some City Select North America v7 into the new unit. I recall it took
me a while to figure out that I had to use the unlock code. So, I guess
I used my second unlock - right?

Sounds like I need to get back in touch with Garmin concerning this
matter to be sure I can use my City Select North America v7 in another
unit if I choose to do so.

BTW, how does the updating work on City Select? On the Garmin web site
it implies that I could update the maps for $50 sometime in the future.
I see that I would have to use my unlock code, but exactly what comes
with an update?

Arthur Hass
Reston, VA

And how do you prevent the user you sold the unit to from continuing to
use the maps? He has an unlocked GPS with maps on it possibly. For
Garmin to do this they would have to have a way to disable the locks on
the original unit and ensure that there are no maps left installed on
the original unit(s).

Dale

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // #
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:21:36 -0400, Joe S. vigorously opined:

Hi, Joe.

I am not familiar with how mapsource unlock works for the national park
series of maps.

My problem is specific to North American City Select, versions 5/6. I
purchased NACS a couple of years ago, and still have it. NACS is licensed
for two units, in my case, a GPSmap 76CS and a Vista C.

I've recently sold these units.

Garmin tells me that the unlock codes for NACS are specific to both units,
I'm assuming through the Unit I.D. which can be found through the
MapSource program under the menu sequence: Utilities, Get Unit ID. (If the
unit is connected, you will get your specific gpsr's Unit I.D. string.)
I'm also informed that these unlock codes are not transferable to a new
unit, and that is the crux of my complaint.

I am also assuming, for lack of better knowledge, that the unlock codes
are generated from this Unit I.D. String and some type of Software I.D.
string on NACS, as well. Together, these allow you to upload the NACS
maps to your particular unit. However, there is no consideration given
for people who sell their units, then buy new ones. Garmin expects
everyone to purchase additional unlock codes, a practice I find ethically
and morally reprehensible as a business practice.

This, when it seems perfectly feasible for a bench technician--with
authority to do so--to simply reassign the hardware/software code
combination to the new unit without having to purchase new data from an
outside vendor every time a new code sequence is generated.

I wouldn't want my company to be locked into that type of agreement,
anyway. It's anathema for the customer and tedious for the
manufacturer/vendor, so I don't know why anyone would even want to use
that model.

Now, to be fair: I'm not trying to overtly-flame Garmin, NAVTEQ, or
anyone else for that matter. I believe I'm correct and right in my
thinking, no more, no less. I'm a consumer. I know what 'common sense'
implies, whether the subject matter is gps receivers, mapping software, or
shoes.

All I want is to be able to use my current software without having to
"re-buy" the unlock code that makes it work. I've already bought it. I
should not have to 'buy' it a second time.

Thanks for your reply,
Stephen

...

Hmmmm. Tell me more about the unlock codes.

I purchased a GPS MAP 76Cx a couple of days ago -- VERY pleased with it.

I ordered the MapSource National Parks East because I need the 1:24,000
topos of the Great Smokies. I plan to load the Smokies topos onto the SD
chip in the GPS unit. Are you telling me there is an unlock code that will
allow me to upload the maps only to this one unit? What happens if I want
to put one of the topos onto my Etrex Legend?

Thanks.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:38:30 -0500, Stephen Brown vigorously opined:

More specifically, this pertains to the right of the consumer to not be
gouged by the 'company store' for products already paid for. Kind of like
the old tale of the townsfolk owning heating units for their homes in the
winter, then being forced to turn them back in to the company store for
the summer, only to be forced to pay again to have them reinstalled the
next winter.

I consider this no different in principle.

Here we have two companies: Garmin International and NAVTEQ. I do not
have a problem with the two-unit limit on maps. Just so long as one is
transferable to the other when new hardware is available. Just because I
purchase new hardware does not imply that I should, likewise, have to
update the mapping software just because I bought a new unit.

As the mapping software--North American City Select in this case--is
registered via a condition of the User I.D., re-generating a new unlock
code, sans any necessity of a new license from NAVTEQ for Garmin to
generate such code--as the software has already been purchased by me once,
should not be an issue.

Putting It Bluntly: It's technically feasible, I've paid my money, and
neither I nor Garmin should have to--either directly or indirectly--pay
NAVTEQ for product already bought and paid for. It's simply a unit
reassignment, and should not entail either the manufacturer or the
consumer having to re-pay for anything to a third party.

The problem lies in the ability for a user (consumer) of the mapping
products to be able to drop units at will, either through on-site
registration or--and more to my liking--with the ability to add and drop
gps units from within MapSource, itself, with no limitations on the number
of units, so long as they remain at two.

The mapping software should not be hardware i.d. dependent to the point of
absolute exclusion. Some lattitude for the consumer is an implied right,
and should be respected. It's called "Fair Use Rights" if I'm not
mistaken.

Warm regards,
Stephen

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:01:34 +0000, Seagull vigorously opined:

I only sold the gps units, themselves, not the individual software, North
American City Select. I no longer own the hardware. The software still
resides on my hard drive.

This is a licensing/registration issue, not a hardware issue.

Thanks for your reply,
--Stephen

Correct. You should consider the cost of the maps when determining the
sale price for your old units. A GPS device with lock codes is worth
more than one without.

Correct.

Why not? When you sold your units, you sold the maps with them. You
don't own them anymore.

Cheers,
-+JLS

--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
# \ (seize the guinea pig!)

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:35:46 -0500, Stephen Brown vigorously opined:

Editor's Note: Sorry for the typos ;). It seems my "buys" are getting a
mixed up with my "by's."

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Respectfully,
Stephen