Though this is a case of Apple vs Samsung what really is on trial is the US Patent System and the Judge.
Considering the 4 design patents that Apple is asserting it highlights that something is seriously wrong with the patent system where you can patent rounded corners and flat design as "ornamental" ie have no functional puprose.
The two iPhone design patents include placement of the iPhone’s round “home” button, rounded corners, edge-to-edge glass and “uncluttered” front of the iPhone.
The iOS design patent addresses the grid layout of icons in iOS - along with the bottom dock where staple applications like the phone, browser and messages live. From a design perspective, that is very simple to understand.
The iPad patent, like the two from the iPhone, has to do with the shape and size of the device. A thin bezel and minimal aesthetics of the front and back are the primary aspects.
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. It is ornamental - it has no fucntional aspect because if it did then it would cease to be a design patent.
This is all explained succintly here.
Apple is in the bizarre position of having to claim that the functional aspects that make a smartphone desirable: flat and pocketable, no sharp edges, etc., are purely ornamental, and not useful at all. This fact led to ridiculous expert testimony from Apple arguing that Samsung had many alternatives available for its devices, instead of using Apple’s strictly “ornamental” design — alternatives such as:
“front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone…”
“overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear… and profiles that are not thin”.
Of course. Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head. They’ll no doubt appreciate the different “ornamental” approach while reading through their opaque screen. No functional drawbacks there.
Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants? Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.
So arguing whether prior art exists of tablets in Sci Fi movies is missing the point - how the Judge cannot see this is peturbing.