Imagine if everyone had the same process, the only distinction would be the amount of output you can get per employee (as the employee compensation is one of the biggest cost) or marketing/brand (another big expense category) or customer service. Companies might end up exploiting employees or blatantly misleading their customers in order to attract the business.
First two of which are detrimental to society at large and not the optimum uses of the available resources.
Third of which, the improved customer service is a plus. But the user perception of better customer service is not exactly better customer service. But yea incumbents are often not willing to provide better customer service when there is a moat (guaranteed value), I've experienced this first hand with companies like Facebook Ads, Google Cloud etc.... some of them have improved now while some still suck.
I do not think patent stop disruptions from happening.
If you create a new process which is vastly superior to the old process without infringing existing patents, you can do that.
If you improve a patented process, you can sell it to the company owns the patent but they might not pay you the best price as they have the monopoly and they do not need to.
We need some mechanism (law?) to facilitate a fair payment for an improvement over an existing patent to avoid monopolistic exploitative practices. If an organization can truly benefit from an improvement and is in position to make a fair valuation and payment, IMHO it should.