Patents are supposed to be an inducement, but that rationale alone falls flat on its face once you realize that invention takes place in the absence of patent protections. Worse, patent protections make it more difficult to innovate as claims are broadened.
Disclosure is a laudable objective of patents, but largely unimportant as multiple parties come to the same inventions and talented persons reverse-engineer products (some of whom document their findings publicly). Enforced disclosure is not needed, irrespective of the protections awarded.
In industries where R&D is costly, patent protections are not needed when there is a first-mover advantage. Moreover, patent protections are not needed for commercialization, provided that the inventor continues to innovate after the first sale. Providing a guaranteed advantage to the inventor causes an overall harm to the market of the product, as the inventor has no incentive to improve the product or lower prices, because the inventor has no competition. Competition is healthy, and patents neuter it, leaving the market fragile and expensive.
All of these things can be demonstrated by analyzing the history of patent litigation. I can find no reason to support these rationale.