Presumably it passed the "Machine-or-transformation" test in the minds of the USPTO for them to grant it.
However, the independent claims are quite long and involving a number of complex steps. I would have thought it possible to find a work-around that doesn't infringe. There must be plenty of prior-art systems that will limit the interpretation the claims.
A patent that is blatently unenforceable, and which should never have been issued.
Prove it. I think you may be right, but a granted patent is presumed valid. The onus is on the opponents to show it isn't (though curiously Microsoft are currently trying to change that balance to make it easier to overturn patents).
Anyone affected should form a group with others, to reject the claim/s, and employ a good attorney who can explain in a court of law, in clear, unambiguous terms, the precise meaning of "prior art".
First find your prior art. Find products, publications, even personal software systems if they can be deemed in the public domain that show that the patent claims were not novel at the time of filing.
Or, as I said earlier, don't bother to invalidate it. Simply modify your software (if necessary) so that it doesn't match all the tightly-defined steps in the patent. That might well be possible, given the complexity of the patent claims.