Well, I think for starters, you're missing context for the first example. Prior art must pertain to the context, and animated film is not a touch enabled computing device. For instance, just because Roddenberry thought of the idea of teleportation doesn't mean this concept in the show is prior art. If and when a company does invent a teleporter, then they will be able to patent it.
And your second point about obvious is flawed. Everything is obvious when you know the correct answer. For instance, a wheel is so obvious that a very young child could rationalize its creation and use. Because it's obvious once seen. But if it's so obvious, why did it take us 245,000 year or so to invent the wheel? Microsoft has been touting the tablet for ten years. Why didn't they create it, if it's so obvious.
I think all patents need to go away, I think they cripple innovation and make it impossible to create something new if you're not a giant corporation. But in so long as we're stuck with these laws, then every company has to try to patent everything it can so it doesn't get sued.
Feel free to provide link that show the design patent law has an exception for context (domain) of the article. From what can be read in the actually law, it require the same novelty as utility patent, and this requirement is:
An invention will not normally be patentable if:
The invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection;
The invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or
The invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date.
Was the public unaware of how flipping an page on a touch screen looked like before this "invention" was shown, specially when one consider the significant similar design made in prior published animations?
But dragging something and having it move is a fundamentally obvious interaction. Can you really take "Thing that happens physically, but on a screen" and call it an invention? Could (or did?) someone have gotten a patent on a downward "gravity-like" force on a digital object, so that it falls when you let go of the mouse button?
Has anyone patented "grabbing" an "object" with augmented reality glasses, and manipulating it in space? That seems like the most obvious extension of click and drag into the third dimension possible, and yet I have very little doubt that the patent office would grant it.
There were a lot of patents in VR, as it was a boom area. Most will however have expired now, without making any money. You could take a look to see how bad they were, although I do not think they were as bad as grabbing objects, a lot of the patents were still physical devices like controllers and glasses.
And your second point about obvious is flawed. Everything is obvious when you know the correct answer. For instance, a wheel is so obvious that a very young child could rationalize its creation and use. Because it's obvious once seen. But if it's so obvious, why did it take us 245,000 year or so to invent the wheel? Microsoft has been touting the tablet for ten years. Why didn't they create it, if it's so obvious.
I think all patents need to go away, I think they cripple innovation and make it impossible to create something new if you're not a giant corporation. But in so long as we're stuck with these laws, then every company has to try to patent everything it can so it doesn't get sued.