Definitely agree that the scope of this is rather unique in what is normally discussed (coffee brewers versus cable/phone/internet monopolization). Thanks for noting that this particular case has some interesting (and non-interesting) ties to the larger anti-competitive arena; I tried to make it clear that I was spotlighting the specific instance of THIS and appreciate your ability to pick up on that (not too common out here "in the wild").
Sincere question here: in this particular instance, why wouldn't this be settled by the market in so much as a new party (perhaps TreeHouse) creates a Keurig-clone that accepts any pods and just sell that for what it is?
My favorite part is the attempt to downplay the amount of time they held this individual ("briefly interviewed") as well as the nature of it ("voluntary") given that the individual, by his own account, was issued veiled threats in the event of him becoming uncooperative.
They aren't claiming "spoilers" from a legal perspective, it is their copyright. Along with that are perfectly legal means for using copyrighted items; reviews and criticism (within bounds) are some of those ways.
I highly recommend spending some time on techdirt to get a primer on such things before you start commenting.