Rather different things. The right to own property and do what you want with it, outside of a relatively limited set of prohibitions, is a fundamental right that forms the basis of our economy. Patents are an artificial construct created for a specific purpose with specific limitations. They are meant to encourage technological innovation by providing temporary Government protection for the inventor in exchange for a disclosure of the details of the technology. For an entity that has not invented anything and has no intention to do any research or sell any products to use them to extort rents from companies that actually do those things is a distortion of the purpose of the system.

no, this is similar to owning a plan for a house, then charging rent (without ever having built the house) to anyone who happens to live in a house that looks a bit similar to the plan.

IP isn't a tangible asset, so the analogy is unsound.

I think it's improper for someone not using IP or not the original developer of IP to be able to make IP claims. If you didn't develop the tech or aren't using the tech, you shouldn't have any claim over the usage of that tech.

The same goes for "defensive" patent strategies. They're an affront to the spirit of patents.

> I think it's improper for someone not using IP or not the original developer of IP to be able to make IP claims

Congress, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of precedent would disagree.

Do they also prevent anyone else from living in houses?