Yes, you do misunderstand, @misty123. “I have” is the operative phrase. It contains the subject and verb. The pronoun “I” experiences “have” ... whatever object you want to discuss, in this case “the latest software”. Software is the object of this sentence.
You are correct that the sentence indicates possession, but you were apparently unclear on the subject and object of the sentence.
——-
When you get to a sentence like “I have just had my hair cut”, now you’re getting into present perfect again (see my earlier examples above, and @morphail‘s correction of the terms that I used). “Have had” is present perfect.
“I had a haircut” is simple past tense.
“I am having a haircut” is simple present tense.
“I will have a haircut” is future tense.
“I have had my haircut”, or in your example “I have just had my hair cut”, is present perfect.
When you want to use “have” as a transitive verb, as you indicate above as “a causative verb”, you want to be certain there is no other verb nearby that have / has / had is modifying. Because if it is, then you’re probably in a “perfect” tense: present perfect / past perfect / future perfect.
I have a rope. That’s clearly present tense, and it’s easy to see the subject / verb / object.
I have used a rope. Clearly present perfect: “have used” is the verb form.
As I mentioned earlier, the verb have in all of its forms is so prevalent in English that you have to be must be careful how it is used and what it actually means to the sentence. Those of us who grew up in the language don’t have too much difficulty understanding the usage even when the speaker or writer gets it wrong and even those who don’t formally understand correct usage, because it is so much a part of how we grew up with the language.
For example, (I don’t want to confuse you now with a whole new set of verb forms), with the conditional forms “would have”, “could have”, “should have”, many speakers understandably use contractions when they speak “would’ve”, “should’ve”, “could’ve” but they often actually say and write “would of”, “should of”, “could of” because the sounds are somewhat similar. Even in those clearly incorrect cases, we understand the meaning (and understand, also, that the speaker / writer is careless about grammar, too, so it puts us on guard sometimes about “I wonder what he really meant”). But that’s just an example of what I meant when I said that “we can understand even incorrect usage” in many cases.
Maybe “I’m a get a haircut” or “I seen his new haircut” would also be sufficient examples, I suppose.