How I understood Apple's statement:
"(Company X) makes no products, has no employees, creates no jobs, has no U.S. presence, and is exploiting our patent system to seek royalties for technology (company Y) invented,
It's like saying Inventor Y thinks that he can use the USPTO-patent protected inventions of InventorX for free just because Inventor X doesn't have a manufacturing arm or isn't US-based.
Until this is the basis on which a patent is awarded, it can't and shouldn't be the basis on which a patent is disputed.
Apple's PR statement makes it look bad.
I think you're misunderstanding that message written. It looks to be that Apple is saying since this company has no employees, creates no jobs, etc. there's no reason for them to be creating a patent for a non-existing company. Sure, anyone can create a patent but if it's not used you do realize it can become null and void right? But then again, there's no proof as of yet that Smartflash invented anything.