PSS: I jus re-read my original comment and noticed an IMPORTANT typo/omission that nobody has taken umbrage with in the comments….. I left out the word “NOT” in this sentence:
“(More than likely the chandeliers would qualify for a utility patent).”
It should read:
“More than likely the chandeliers would NOT qualify for a utility patent.”
(The discussion is about the “design” of a particular chandelier, not the “invention” of the first chandelier….clearly the chandelier had been invented. Thus, the design may have been unique, but it did not qualify as being “novel and new” the litmus test for a utility patent).
That said….I still feel strongly about the issues raised in this article and since it came to light in the NY Times, I do hope it is brought to Alexandria Symonds attention and she will consider revisiting the “authorship” issues it brings to light.