This article reads very weirdly to me. Are they arguing that disclosing confidential information, and subsequently opposing steps to contain the disclosed information, is perfectly fine because ... it can be found on the internet, precisely because of this disclosure? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
I think they did realize it, because they mention in the article itself that was the source of the information.... I think it is more likely the headline creator didn't realize it.
On further review, I think the confusing nature of the article stems for the author not being careful to separate the original trial from the current contempt of court proceedings.
It's indeed a little silly / funny, although logical, that Google insists Oracle continues to redact things when it's now common knowledge. But the overall proceedings are certainly not silly or frivolous.
That would make sense but I don't think it's true based on the last paragraph:
> Whatever the case, Google is probably right that sealing the transcript faster would have stopped the news story from ever breaking. But the cat’s out of the bag now, and Google’s private information is out there for everyone to see, on Google. Maybe it should try using the right to be forgotten?
The other seems to fully understand that the statements in court led to the information being publicly available but somehow doesn't understand why that would lead to google's reaction. Truly bizarre.
She certainly realizes the causal relationship. The Google search results are raised, because at this point, it's not the revelation that is the subject at hand -- rather it is a criticism of the procedure that was not followed, and what matters.
