Yes, Apple has used propriety connectors but it was always for a purpose not for the sake of being different. Often the reason was simplicity or elegance, always gaining a strong benefit for the users from the difference.

iPod dock connectors: far from just being a USB port it is a lot of things. Originally, it was a combination Firewire/USB/audio/charging port. Later, video out was added. Firewire was dropped. A standard USB connector would never have done what was intended for the dock connector. Could they have moved to a standard USB connector later on, perhaps, but then they would have broken compatibility with previous iPods.

Mouse cables: There was no standard mouse connector before the Mac, so it came with something propriety. It was later replaced with the ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) , which allowed keyboards and mice to be daisy chained and allowed a Mac to be powered up from the keyboard. After that they moved to USB and then Bluetooth. At no point was there a propriety connector for the sake of it.

Printer cables: I can't say I know the whole history of Apple's printer connectors but on the Mac it started with RS-422 and they've since used the networking system, SCSI, USB, Firewire and wireless.

Modem cables: Started of with RS-422 as well, from memory. At one point there was a very propriety, strange connection, whose name I forgot. Apple were attempting all sorts of weird shit with it. Didn't last long.

Monitor cables (which really should have been on your list): Apple has a long history of propriety monitor cables. The aim has always been simplicity, combining multiple cables into a single one. Usually audio, keyboard/mouse connections were included. Thunderbolt really is the latest in a long line of these and the first one that wasn't propriety. Perhaps it will last longer than the previous ones.

There's plenty of things to criticise Apple about but this really isn't one of them. Just part of Apple not being happy with the status quo and trying something different to improve technology.

Everything but the last part? No, the patent application would have no impact on you. You have to do everything in a claim to infringe it. Can you can more but not less and infringe.

Up instead of down? Yes, patent claim 1 doesn't detail what the gesture is.

Claim 1. .... recognize a page-flipping gesture directed along an outer edge of the second touch display region; and display, responsive to advancement of the page-flipping gesture, a virtual page flip in which pages quickly flip from the second touch display region to the first touch display region. Either this means finishing the flip which would be another duh, or a quick flip of many pages, which might be something.

That's what it is. There are two page-flipping gestures in the claim. The second one is the quick-flip, which, as you admit, "might be something".

Always on Slashdot there's these raging discussions about patents without understanding the details. For a claim to be novel, only one element of it needs to be novel. What this patent is describing is the fast flip idea. iBooks does not do this.

As well, this bit "which might be something" seems like a good, novel idea which would enhance iBooks.

Disclaimer: however, I am against software patents. But we need to understand them.

You're off the mark on why Apple has prevented Flash from being available on the iOS devices.
They have never mentioned screen size as a reason.
If it was about making a profit on the App Store they wouldn't be strongly pushing HTML5 and web apps.
There is already DRM'ed media being sold on the iOS devices that Apple get no cut of. See the Kindle App. Free and you buy the content from a web site.
Why should we not take the company line as an honest appraisal of the problems with Flash on these devices and go looking for other motives?

You misunderstood what the parent was talking about. Exploring a menu is very different to quickly using a keyboard sequence to issue a command.

When it comes to exploring a menu using the keyboard, a slight difference in the number of keystrokes is irrelevant. You're spending a lot more time looking over what is available than you spend pressing any keys.

But why is anyone typing Alt-F-S when they could just be typing Ctrl-S (or Command-S)?

(And for the record, for me there needs to be another keystroke on the Mac to actually open the menu. This can be a space or a down arrow that I have found.)

Who were only ripping off Schadenfreude Interactive, http://www.schadenfreudeinteractive.com/accordion.html

I disagree. If a lack of copyright is what you desire for your creations that already exists now within the current system. You simply put them into the public domain. The fact that this isn't what people want to do means that they do, as the author suggests, want to retain some control over their creation and so use the GLP or Creative Commons or some similar system.