The problem here is that you (and mtgx) are using the word "property" in a different way to the way lawyers use it, which is the way it's used in "intellectual

The problem here is that you (and mtgx) are using the word "property" in a different way to the way lawyers use it, which is the way it's used in "intellectual property". To a lawyer, some bundle of rights is a 'property' right if it has a particular set of characteristics, such as being transferable and binding the world. By the legal definition, patents, copyright, and trademarks are definitely (intangible) property rights. (Well, mostly: in the UK a few of the rights in copyright, known as 'moral rights', aren't property rights: they give you an action in tort only, and can't be transferred). So e.g. you say "patents is a license to manufacture ... the product exclusively for some years". But this doesn't work. No kind of licence can give you the right to sue a third party: a licence can only stop you from being sued. (An 'exclusive' licence is just one where you the licensor has contracted not to grant a licence to anyone else). To sue a third party (who's made the product without a licence), you need the patent to give you a property right. (IANAL).