There seems to be some sort of meme here that, for some reason, design patents are completely above criticism. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably think that.
Design patents are the US version of a registered industrial design. It only stops competitors from copying your design, and doesn't harm innovation at all, and may actually encourage it. The shape of an akg headphone, a coke bottle, nike shoes, swatch watches, macbook, ps3, tic-tac box, bic pen, a ferrari... This is what stops chinese factories from legally selling exact copies (visually at least) of everything you know.
Did you read the link you pointed to? It says this Article establishes yet another basis for policy makers to free design patent standards from the unworkable and inappropriate nonobviousness requirement. If I sell a computer that is just a small completely clean white cube, which no one else does, is it an obvious design?
"Design patents are only granted if the design is novel and not obvious for all items"
Are you saying this is wrong? Does it not reflect the current state of things?
"it is now unquestionable that the nonobviousness requirement applies to both utility and design patents."
The article seems to very clearly explain that novelty is a requirement for design patents. The authors think that should not be the case, but recognize that currently it is. Did you read the article?
Are you conceding that the page turning animations described in this design patent are not novel? It seems to me that you are conceding that it is not novel, but wish that were not a requirement.
Novelty is a reasonable requirement to prevent people from registering other's ideas, but nonobviousness is not, per my previous example.
Back to the main thread, I don't have access to the full patent text, it depends on what exactly Apple has claimed. iBooks certainly doesn't look exactly like any other app.
I think I'm allowed to have an opinion. As I said, I don't have access to the patent, how could I tell if this patent's claims are novel/obvious or not? Even if I had, you'd probably need to go to court to get a definitive answer.
Wikipedia seems to think that design patents must be both (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent#cite_note-8). Is it wrong?
There seems to be some sort of meme here that, for some reason, design patents are completely above criticism. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably think that.