This kind of reminds me of when airspace was separated from Land property rights. There doesn't necessarily need to be any underlying logic or consistency, so a very tailored legal interpretation could be formed in theory.
That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able to option or sell indefinite use rights if they own the thing itself. It is less intuitive that individuals have a right to aggregate such options for Monopoly.
Now that I think about it, it seems there could be some comparison to the corner crossing cases that are being litigated too
That said, I think I'm much more practical solution is to focus on the buyer's rights and non-competitive behavior then limiting sellers rights. It makes intuitive sense that people would be able to option or sell indefinite use rights if they own the thing itself. It is less intuitive that individuals have a right to aggregate such options for Monopoly.
Now that I think about it, it seems there could be some comparison to the corner crossing cases that are being litigated too