You frame this as a binary: patents or trade secrets. But other options include authorized copying (open source) and copying without express permission (Shanzai style)[1]. As I mentioned in my original comment, both of those modes of development played a crucial role in lowering the price of 3D printers as well as increasing volume. By 2008, Stratasys had shipped 16,000 3D printers in the company history. Now Prusa Research ships that many printers in one month. And Prusa is fully open source and always has been. So clearly trade secrets are not the only alternative to patents.
You must understand, when one inventor gets rights over something, now 1000 other inventors working in a similar field cannot easily build on that idea. So one person benefits while 1000 others are restricted. But the market already rewards innovators, so why stop those 1000 would-be innovators because one person filed all the right paperwork?
And because people always mention this: investment would still work. Instead of a $10m investment for a big five year project, the investments would be smaller and more frequent. Improve the product and impress buyers with the next version. Is it a flop? Someone else will clone your failed version with the necessary improvements, and next year they will get the investment. Product development happens faster because no one can rest on their laurels, and cost of living goes down because no one can charge a very high price for something that can be cloned for cheap.
That faster innovation and lower cost of living is obviously a huge benefit to moving away from patents. This is also a fact rarely acknowledged by those who believe in the standard story about the purpose and benefits of patents. There's billions of people on Earth who need the knowledge we have locked up in patent portfolios. We must not be careless with how we consider this policy. There is a lot at stake.