The pre-lithographic masks for chips are copyrighted (prior to algorithmic modifications for sub-wavelength interference features). The schematics for printed circuit boards are copyrighted. (But only to the extent that they were not produced by programs; robots can't author copyrightable work.)
The process for transforming a notional chip mask into one that can be used to actually produce chips on a fabrication device that uses a particular wavelength is going to be covered by multiple patents, unless the chip fab is more than 20 years old, so you can't copy the post-transformation masks, either.
The whole design of the hardware is only patentable, and only to the extent that the patent claims apply to it.
So if you take an entire electronics device, reduce it down to a block/circuit diagram, then use that to create a new schematic, and use the schematic to produce another electronic device with identical function, you have not violated copyright in doing so, nor are the schematics and masks derivative works.
In the case of the book that describes a process of manufacturing, the process part of it is like a recipe. It is only the supplemental prose that is copyrighted. So you would have to strip out the introduction, descriptions of specific applications, etc.
That is why map-makers used to put fake towns or streets on maps, beyond the borders of the area that is purportedly mapped. So on a map of Pennsylvania, they might place a town called "Fakesburg" in the greyed-out part of Delaware that adjoins Pennsylvania (a literal grey area), and put a "Trapsville" in the greyed-out New York, the Pennsylvania portion of the paper being presented as factual, and the margins as copyrightable creativity. But the courts called this out as bullshit, so the mapmakers stopped. Some elements of copyright still exist in mapping, but only to the extent that the map diverges from literal facts. For instance, if the widths of roads are exaggerated, and colors added, for the purposes of making an infographic for a traffic throughput data set, the creative combination of facts could possibly be copyrightable, but little prevents someone else from independently combining the same two sets of facts into an all-new (but similar-looking) infographic.
In the case of hardware, the lowest-level circuit diagram is the factual map of the device. But there are many ways to lay it out in physical reality, as to how many layers to use, where to route the traces, which subunits to place in the blocks, how to label the components with printed text, etc. So you couldn't make a photographically identical copy, but you could make a copy that does exactly the same thing with a redesigned PCB.
The process for transforming a notional chip mask into one that can be used to actually produce chips on a fabrication device that uses a particular wavelength is going to be covered by multiple patents, unless the chip fab is more than 20 years old, so you can't copy the post-transformation masks, either.
The whole design of the hardware is only patentable, and only to the extent that the patent claims apply to it.
So if you take an entire electronics device, reduce it down to a block/circuit diagram, then use that to create a new schematic, and use the schematic to produce another electronic device with identical function, you have not violated copyright in doing so, nor are the schematics and masks derivative works.
In the case of the book that describes a process of manufacturing, the process part of it is like a recipe. It is only the supplemental prose that is copyrighted. So you would have to strip out the introduction, descriptions of specific applications, etc.
That is why map-makers used to put fake towns or streets on maps, beyond the borders of the area that is purportedly mapped. So on a map of Pennsylvania, they might place a town called "Fakesburg" in the greyed-out part of Delaware that adjoins Pennsylvania (a literal grey area), and put a "Trapsville" in the greyed-out New York, the Pennsylvania portion of the paper being presented as factual, and the margins as copyrightable creativity. But the courts called this out as bullshit, so the mapmakers stopped. Some elements of copyright still exist in mapping, but only to the extent that the map diverges from literal facts. For instance, if the widths of roads are exaggerated, and colors added, for the purposes of making an infographic for a traffic throughput data set, the creative combination of facts could possibly be copyrightable, but little prevents someone else from independently combining the same two sets of facts into an all-new (but similar-looking) infographic.
In the case of hardware, the lowest-level circuit diagram is the factual map of the device. But there are many ways to lay it out in physical reality, as to how many layers to use, where to route the traces, which subunits to place in the blocks, how to label the components with printed text, etc. So you couldn't make a photographically identical copy, but you could make a copy that does exactly the same thing with a redesigned PCB.