Apples to Oranges. Not even close to the same thing. If Physical Property were treated the same way as Intellectual Properties, no one would have any neighbors, because only the first person to build a house is allowed to own a house. Intellectual Property is all about who is allowed to replicate an existing work into additional instances of existence, where as Physical Property is all about not having your existential instance of a work taken from you.

IP should not expire as long as the intellectual product is not publicised, i.e. while it is in the head of whom produced it. But if it is publicised, i.e. published, it is public, and no longer property. If I had a house, that's physical property. If I and my family live in it, it's our property. If I let the public in, i.e. publicised it, then it is public, and essentially not property anymore.

Ideas and concepts have the ability to benefit society as a whole. Physical property benefits very few.

Also after a certain period of time, it becomes a bit of a stretch to suggest that nobody else would have thought of that same idea over a long enough time frame.

Now of course, I'm not really speaking to Mickey Mouse, so much as I am scientific breakthroughs and good ideas that improve on old concepts, but it's all IP.

Physical property benefits very few if you and your offspring are allowed to squat on it for eternity as scarcity drives up its value. If you had limits on it, maybe that peppery goes back to auction bringing more properly into supply for more communal use.

My only problem with that argument is , by that logic, wouldn't land containing a large deposit of oil or some natural resource be public property. The property given to the public would definitely benefit society as a whole.

Ideas are forever. Physical property is not.

I'm pretty sure the land I'm standing on will take a few billion years to disintegrate.