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.
