I think he was mostly referring to 'Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods' with his question. That escapes the bounds of the current news item and makes a blanket statement about general practices. 'Paying for interviews' is can't easily be grouped in with 'inducing a misappropriation of trade secrets' without really broadening the net that you're casting.
True. I was referring to the specific context of pay as an inducement to break confidentiality agreements, as opposed to paying to interview a famous actor or something like People magazine.
Why is this?