This is no time for schadenfraude, but Oracle?s lawsuit over Google?s alleged copyright infringement of Java technology has been widely held as a godsend for Microsoft and Apple. But who is the real loser?

Whatever the merits of the case ? Oracle is upset with Google?s use of Dalvik Java technology for its Android mobile operating system ? it has created uncertainty among phone manufacturers, ad networks, software developers and wireless carriers. Any threat to Android?s growing influence across major mobile devices can upend key sections of the mobile ecosystem.

Apple?s Steve Jobs has long been an advocate for closed systems versus the open source preferred by Google and a host of device makers, developers and carriers. Microsoft is another proponent of its own proprietary systems.

What is surprising about this case that was filed last week in a California federal court was that there was room for new Java owner Oracle to claim that Google and the device makers did not have the proper rights to use Java in Android.

Google, in a press response, obviously disagreed, calling the suit ?baseless? and a threat to the open-source community. And indeed the threat is real.

Pick up the phone
While Apple and Microsoft would seem the obvious beneficiaries, the real loser is the ability to innovate without fear of lawsuits, legitimate or frivolous.

Having observed the mobile industry for some time now, it is quite clear that it is highly litigious. Not a month goes by without some litigation involving Google, Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and Research In Motion ? some against each other, some against them.

The end result of this endless round of litigation is higher costs for the entire mobile ecosystem. The costs will eventually be passed down to the consumer.

Perhaps this latest lawsuit will be a catalyst for all players in the ecosystem to have a serious discussion over standards ? carriers, handset makers, platform and software developers, payments franchises, ad networks, ad agencies, brands, retailers and content producers.

At issue is the future of mobile?s ability to deliver hardware, software, content, commerce, marketing and communications without fear of disruption.

Civil tone
If the mobile business has to grow to the size of the online world or offline media, then a few issues must be resolved and quickly.

First, the legal rights must be clearly established. Where there is ambiguity, clarity must be sought. Where there is alleged infringement, negotiation must be the initial step.

Second, device standards must be created. While the goal is not to have homogeneity, an attempt must be made to standardize mobile phone screen sizes and content and image rendering to allow content producers and software developers to avoid duplication of efforts.

Third, a standardization of customer experiences must be sought. Be it the hardware, software or ability to read or buy, the customer must not have to learn a new language to navigate from one device to another and one platform to another.

Indeed, take a cue from the traditional Internet and see how standardization of experiences has become the biggest catalyst for innovation and spend on that medium.

Finally, the industry must establish a Mobile Standards Authority. This coalition of the willing ? carriers, device makers, platform and software developers, ad networks, ad agencies, content owners, retailers, brands and payments franchises ? must band together to avoid fratricide in an industry that has just begun to get its sea legs.

Bite the bullet
Mobile?s greatest threat is lack of standards. Resorting to lawsuits to settling differences over lunch will hurt not only those involved but innocent bystanders in the process ? consumers.

It is still too early to say if Oracle will prevail in the Java lawsuit or if Google will settle. Apple and Microsoft will certainly benefit in the short run. But, at this rate, the entire mobile industry and consumers will lose in the long run.

The issue is not one of copyright infringement, but of civil engagement between those that disagree in a still-evolving mobile industry. It is also reflective of an industry that operates by the rules of a digital Wild West and will die by its quickest form of justice ? a bullet that will never be silver.