I think that is arguable.

From the US constitution:

> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

You could argue the monopoly grant is purely intended as an incentive to publish. I think the accepted interpretation is that it is intended as an incentive to invent as well as publish those inventions.

IMHO the merits of that logic are open to debate though. Not a big fan of IP myself.

The function of a patent is to give a temporarily monopoly to someone who has invented something new. It’s disingenuous to say “slightly different business” as if that’s the only possibility. It is true that they encourage disclosure, but they also obviously encourage invention of things by letting you make monopoly profits on them for a limited time.