...are the media consistently reporting this the wrong way around, lately?

From the [link|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-866209.html|article:]

Last June, a federal appeals court threw out some of the charges against Microsoft but upheld a lower court ruling that the company had illegally maintained its Windows software monopoly in personal computer operating systems.

They're saying, in effect, that ONE ruling was upheld, but "some" -- which could well mean, ALL the rest of them; especially given that "only one" [as per the preceding] was upheld -- were thrown out. But wasn't it actually only ONE that got "THROWN OUT", and ALL THE REST UPHELD?

I'm sure I've seen close variations of their exact phraseology before; this seems to have been the standard way of reporting it since at least around New Year's last. (Then again, it could be that the phenomenon is limited to "only" CNET and affiliates -- but from what I gather, with its affiliates, CNET *is* pretty much the on-line IT media, at least in the USA.)

Am I wrong on the facts? And, if I'm not, has anybody else noticed the same phenomenon in the reporting of them?