I want this guy to be compensated, but I'd prefer this guy be compensated in a manner that doesn't prevent third parties from fixing their hardware. In general, I think bounties are a good solution to this. Failing that, there are plenty of trade groups and nonprofits and regulatory bodies that could be tasked (and funded) with acquiring and freely redistributing this class of innovation if we wanted to.
Obviously 1) is a greater public good than 2), but in reality these are not the only options.
Here's some other realistic situations: 3) With no incentives to make things public, this guy either stops working on this much earlier, doesn't tell anyone, or throws it in the garbage. 4) This guy goes and talks to Intel about his design. They quietly pay him some money or hire him and implement it in secret. Two years from now they launch a processor with this feature and for the indefinite future, until their competitors spend costly time reverse engineering the secret hardware, only Intel processors have this circuit. 5) Same as 4) except Intel says, "Haha, thanks for being a sucker" and doesn't pay anyone.
This is the patent system at its best: incentivizing some guy to work on this invention, then publish his work and describe it in detail. For the next 20 years, he can license it to anyone he wants and profit from his work. After that point everyone can implement it as a public good.
Patents, like any monopoly-granting device, benefit market incumbents much more than encourage new entrants
However, some of the case law around what they'd need to patent the turned unfavorable around the time they were pursuing this and looking to turn it into a business. For your reasons 3) and 5), they've shelved it. This was an individual, not a large company, and without sufficient legal protection to reasonably hold large companies at bay, there simply was not sufficient reason to pursue this effort given how questionable the return would be.
Ideally, that would be how patents are "supposed" to be use: An idea you patent can be used by others in exchange for a royalty fee. In reality, that happens quite a bit, but we also get anti-competitive tech companies who wish to keep advances to themselves, and patent trolls who wait on violations to sue.
Apparently he did up until now, didn't he?
I agree he should get a percentage of the profits other companies make off of his invention, but it's not like he's entitled to any payments just because he liked to tinker around. Inventor's not a real profession.
The first clause in your sentence is exactly what patents are for; the second clause is...tangential at best.