I think most times its worth the "redundancy" in cost of multiple parties discovering the same thing, because then at least they can use it. The way things stand now, plenty of biotech companies just shelve patented things and then its no good to anyone. This can't be easily remedied by "adjusting" the laws, since the lawmakers will always and quite practically be behind the technology, and sometimes not ever understand the technology or consequences.
Either way there is a cost to use: either paying for the rights to the patent, "paying" in completely arbitrary time determined by patent laws which do very little to distinguish completely different technologies and lifespans, or paying to reinvent in trade secret scenarios.
I feel like with trade secrets its much more in our control to remedy situations where many people need access to a technology quickly. It allows for dynamic solutions. For example, private contracts could handle the patent use case without necessarily having IP. They could provide the end product as a service, or provide know-how to build the product under a "subscription-service" where the client agrees to pay a very large fee over the course of several years/dependent on unit sales/etc (the analog to the royalties/licensing fees), with the punishment being spelled out in the contract that if the tech is replicated in some other way or leaked, the client company must pay a large "breakup" fee. That way the client is incentivized to use the tech and keep it secret as well. Client companies can then assess whether these fees are better than the cost of R&D they would have to undertake to develop it themselves. Just look at software: there's plenty of stuff I could build myself, but I happily pay for an existing solution despite not being "forced" to. I think we very early on decided on a patent model and just threw up our hands and said 'no one would possibly invent otherwise!'
Either way there is a cost to use: either paying for the rights to the patent, "paying" in completely arbitrary time determined by patent laws which do very little to distinguish completely different technologies and lifespans, or paying to reinvent in trade secret scenarios.
I feel like with trade secrets its much more in our control to remedy situations where many people need access to a technology quickly. It allows for dynamic solutions. For example, private contracts could handle the patent use case without necessarily having IP. They could provide the end product as a service, or provide know-how to build the product under a "subscription-service" where the client agrees to pay a very large fee over the course of several years/dependent on unit sales/etc (the analog to the royalties/licensing fees), with the punishment being spelled out in the contract that if the tech is replicated in some other way or leaked, the client company must pay a large "breakup" fee. That way the client is incentivized to use the tech and keep it secret as well. Client companies can then assess whether these fees are better than the cost of R&D they would have to undertake to develop it themselves. Just look at software: there's plenty of stuff I could build myself, but I happily pay for an existing solution despite not being "forced" to. I think we very early on decided on a patent model and just threw up our hands and said 'no one would possibly invent otherwise!'