I think once you've actually sussed out the expenses of patents and copyrights they outweigh the benefits. The system as it stands is a product of the system as it was designed. It's real cute and nice at the outset, but lending monopolies to individuals (corporations or otherwise) means concentration of wealth, means outsized political power, means longer more inequitous parents which ultimately gives rise to inefficient rentiers. This defeats the competitive elements necessary for a free market.
Like have you read about the pharma companies that pay out generic mfgs to not manufacture patent-lapsed medication? This allows the patent-holder to buoy their prices and continue the monopolistic racket for medicines without competition. And pharma is held to a different standard.
If we take your example, we'll assume the competition's process is more efficient, well they can't patent that so the inventor can fund and build a factory on par with the competition. Consumer benefits. As it stands one party could design the drug, the other the process, and they could compete inefficiently with royalty bargaining or some such, ultimately leaving little benefit to the consumer. More realistically a conglomerate buys out everything related and sets the price for maximum ROI - supported by the system which has been driven to the inevitable conclusion of artificial monopolies leveraging their outsized wealth in the political arena.
Mentioning the propensity for larger established companies to buy out nascent companies and strangle their products which is enabled by patent law and has lost the collective a considerable amount of goods.