Richard 51's point was clearly about the original granting of the patent, and the subsequent upholding of the patent, not about allowing infringement. Your translation algorithm is worse than Google's.
"[S]o important that it warrants banning the sale or distribution of another companies [products] across the USA" should be the bar to which a technology rises in order to be granted a patent to begin with. That is, as you ask, the point of the patent system: to provide exclusive rights over a certain technology.
Since this technology is not that important (at least in the minds of the sane), the correct action would be to invalidate the patent. But that is almost impossible in this country, as mind-numbing obviousness is not considered a legal basis for invalidating such things, and the burden of proof is entirely upon the individual seeking to invalidate the patent.
I don't blame Apple, (or Motorola, etc.) They're businesses, and morality is not in their dictionary. Their sole purpose is to make money within the framework of their legal environment. It's not their fault that the legal system w/r/t patents is so broken in the US that something as obvious as this could be patented, upheld, and used to justify an import ban.