No, intellectual property isn't property, or you wouldn't need to define it as such. It's a legal fiction

So is property. The reason we use legal fictions to define property boundaries is so that we don't have to go to guns, and we can make sure each person maintains their property without this descending into Feudalism as a result of conquest. The point of a Liberal Society is to create a government that can amicably resolve property disputes so that violation of those property rights is not the norm.

If the government can define what is property, they can just as easily define it away.

The government isn't defining it, you're asserting it. The issue is that your assertion has to meld with the law. That's just how reality has to work. If some kind of government must exist, you must exist within the law.

Software isn't that hard to engineer.

This is just not true. Even if it were true that coming up with software is universally easy, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to own it. I'm sorry, but you're resorting back to the Labor Theory of Value: things that are difficult to do have value, but things that are not difficult to do have less value.

Making intellectual property property is the communist position.

It really isn't, and you've resorted to a communist argument.