I thought that the reason the guy got the patent was to allow anyone to make their own device for their own use, but not for manufacture and sales to others. That way no one company could lock up the use of a good idea. I guess with more expensive devices, like the blocks with a spring-loaded button release, the construction is something a single individual would not usually try to make for himself. So in that instance it would be better to license the patent for use in someone else's product. In that way many companies could compete to make the best device using that idea, instead of just one company like Petzl locking the idea up, so that only they can make a product that uses the idea. An inventor could just come up with great ideas, patent them, license them in a non-exclusive arrangement, and make money from ten different but similar products made by ten different companies. A company might even invent a device never envisioned by the original patent holder, but that still incorporates his essential idea, possibly creating a whole new category of device.
In the open source software community, they have a kind of license that allows people to use and modify a piece of software for no cost, as long as they give credit to the original inventor of the software. They can even sell their modified version for a profit, still including credit for the original portion of the software to the inventors. What they cannot do is to prevent others from using the original kernel of the software to make a different variation that competes with their own modification. In this way, innovation is encouraged. It makes me wonder if such a similar idea exists within the realm of patent applications. If it did, an inventor would not even need to profit himself, if he had an idea he wanted to give to the world. No one company could exert control over the open source patent, and credit would always go back to the original inventor.
Too wordy, once again; apologies.
Tim