[Kaimetsu]

arch_slayer's argument is fairly logical - what's the difference between editing system settings in such a way as to harm the user, and modifying program code to update a program? It very much hinges on the definition of a virus, which has become lax nowadays. In recent times, even a program that just formats C:/ would probably be classed as one, even though it doesn't actually infect anything as classic virii should.

So, a couple of counterarguments:

1) Patches don't always modify code. Sometimes they just replace files like images and exes, and sometimes they're not even executable files.
2) Since patches don't infect stuff or whatever, they're not technically classic virii.
3) If we ignore 2), choosing to side with common wisdom on the definition of a virus then we have to inherit with that common wisdom's belief that patches are not virii.

Make of that what you will.