Then why did Samsung introduce it in court as "prior art," wasting the court's time (the judge was pissed and was considering sanctions on their attorneys for bring such "evidence" into court. I ask the same question of why do YOU bring it up if everyone knows it was not real, what purpose do you have in denigrating the company who actually made them work successfully? Your point was bogus now as it was then.
This is one of those things that I can't comprehend the need to explain. It is so obvious that I find it hard to believe anyone needs an explanation. They brought it into court as "prior art" to demonstrate that the idea was not dreamed up by Apple. Conceptually, and by that "look and feel" which you were discussing previously, there is little difference between what that movie produced, and what Apple subsequently produced.
I ask the same question of why do YOU bring it up if everyone knows it was not real, what purpose do you have in denigrating the company who actually made them work successfully?
What made them work successfully is the fact that the technology finally became available for people to build things such as this with it. The idea was older than the technology necessary to support it.
What new thing did Apple bring to the technology? What particular characteristic of their device is worthy of being patented? If it's the idea that "Look! A screen that you can carry around and use for data entry, etc!", then I would say Stanley Kubrick had that covered back in 1968.