The VC team with the best technical qualifications and about the best background in research relevant to 'information technology' is likely YC. Alas, maybe now they invest only via their two annual 'incubator classes'.

About the best I can suggest is to try some people who:

(1) have shown some strong interest in being thoughtful (and not wacko) and least independent and hopefully innovative and

(2) have been successful and, thus, have some confidence to go 'outside the lines' or the herd or whatever.

If they are VCs with money from limited partners, then likely they need already to have been quite successful to keep their limited partners from complaining about going 'outside the lines'.

If they are angel investors, then they need a good supply of their own money and a lot of experience and success in investing.

I would avoid any investor with a lot of definite opinions: A good investor needs to appreciate and accept that they can't know more than all the entrepreneurs and for a particular, good project can't know more about that project than that entrepreneur so just MUST shut the f^^k up, turn off the electronics, listen up, and think. It's the entrepreneur who is supposed to be cutting the new trail at the frontier and the investor who is supposed to be following along behind.

In particular I would set aside any investor with a long list of Dos and Don'ts on how to give a technical presentation. E.g., here we have a VC who majored in history, got an MBA, and joined a startup in marketing and then became a VC. And there we have an entrepreneur who got a technical Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D., taught undergraduate courses as a graduate student, gave a successful oral defense of his research, presented research at respected conferences, sat in classes for years listening to some of the brightest and most accomplished people ever to live, taught in classes for years, etc.

So, suddenly this VC tells this entrepreneur that they don't know how to present technical material and needs this new, chopped up, watered down, made up, deliberately brain-dead, novel format. Bummer.

As bad as that is, think ahead to the VC being on the Board and that entrepreneur presenting to the Board a new project, with some research content, for improving the 'secret sauce', the ad targeting, the data collection, the system security, performance, or reliability, etc. Before 90 seconds into the presentation, the VC is connected Zynga on his iPhone. Bummer.

So:

(1) VC Brad Feld may be willing and able to be innovative. He likes to say that he invests only in 'themes' or some such, but he may conclude that your project fits one of his themes and may bend a theme otherwise.

(2) Similarly for VC Fred Wilson.

(3) A-H has tried to be at least somewhat flexible in what they do. They've raised a lot of money and apparently recently reported gains from their first fund to their limited partners. So with happy limited partners and lots of 'dry powder', A-H may take a relatively serious look at your project.

(4) Try VC Fred Destin at Atlas -- hit him over the head with something to see if he is just asleep or really dead. If he wakes up, then there is a chance that he will at least start actually thinking. He's been successful in business but been a VC for only a short time and, thus, has a chance of being smart without falling in with the VC herd behavior.

(5) Try Andy Fillat at Leapfrog. He can pay attention and be both insightful and forthcoming.

(6) History suggests that angel Andy Bechtolsheim can quickly see a diamond in the rough and write a check.

(7) Of course the same for angel Ron Conway (who has a son at A-H).

(8) One of the brightest, best qualified, wealthy people in the country is James Simons. If you can get to him, do so. Maybe claim that you need some help with S. Chern's notes on differentiable manifolds or want to teach differential geometry to 10th graders!

Otherwise I would look for investors with rock solid technical backgrounds and accomplishments with solid experience in business with usually a Ph.D., at least in computer science, better still in theoretical parts of electronic engineering, still better in applied math. Might look for profs at Stanford, CMU, or MIT.