If an interview like that can be gamed by "memorizing blurbs" then it wasn't done correctly. A properly conducted interview will see the interviewer tugging at threads to go deeper. At some point they will crack because memorization won't be enough. Unless of course they are anpathological liar, but those are rare enough that I would ignore the posssibility at the interview stage.
You're right, I exaggerated but I don't think this is a hard game. People spend several months right now on studying interviews. The topics are wide and scope enormous, hence so many complaints; some companies test you on languages, others on algorithms, data structures, dynamic programming, bit manipulations, SQL queries, scalability, unix internals, I could go on and on. On the other hand, there's only so many paths these past history conversations can go, and you know where they can poke at.
