In the first paragraph I open by pointing out that I don't like the existence of these patents. In the last paragraph I point out that the fact that the particular patent I selected is bad is an indictment of the patent system, and not the particular patent. Both statements run directly counter to any assumption that I think that government protected monopolies on once innovative ideas are good things.
In between I explain why, according to the rules for granting patents, this particular patent is relatively good. Note the critical qualification. I didn't make up those rules, nor do I agree with them. But those rules matter because they are the rules that this will be argued by in the courts.
And finally you aren't the first in this discussion to point out that this innovation was inevitable in the long run. To repeat what I said earlier on this point, the fact that I can point to two independent reinventions between the time this patent was filed and issued serves as strong evidence for that inevitability. However the argument that a given innovation was inevitable over time is irrelevant to any discussion of patents in the courts.
But I don't accept this premise. Even if automatically updating software over the network was prescient and innovative in 1995, that doesn't mean it would be prescient and innovative in 2000, or 2005, or 2010, even if this patent had not come into existence. I strongly believe that this kind of technique was inevitable as networks became ubiquitous, and getting the government involved in granting a monopoly on the technique is iniquitous and harmful to innovation.