The OP seems to be calling for bringing unique, new,
powerful, valuable technology to information
technology (IT) products, presumably as a way to
faster progress for civilization. If so, then okay.
But:

Given a claim of such technology, an investor doing
'due diligence' has to evaluate it. Then if the
investor is a venture partner (VP), they have to
consider the 'guidelines' they agreed to with their
limited partners (LPs) and for the investment maybe
'explain' to the limited partners. Then the LPs
have to 'judge' the accuracy of the due diligence.
But, the VPs and LPs don't like to do, or get
involved with, such things. Instead they just
prefer to "let the market decide".

Are the VPs and LPs wrong? From some data posted
recently by Fred Wilson at his AVC.com, apparently
they are wrong: The numerical data seems to say
that in recent years the 'venture capital asset
class' has done significantly less well than an
index fund or the S&P.

For more, the financial value of the coveted,
honored, respected, celebrated "unique, new,
powerful, valuable technology" in IT doesn't have
such a great track record at least in the sense that
it's not easy to find the yachts. Can take this
situation as either a slap in the face of the hopes
of financial gains from research or as a great, wide
open field, free of competition, for such gains from
research.

One argument for the research is that what the
venture partners are looking for is exceptional; if
a venture partner gets 2000 contacts from
entrepreneurs, evaluates 100, and invests in 3, then
clearly they are looking for something exceptional.
Well, looking for value in "unique, new, powerful,
valuable technology" from research should be a
promising place to look for something exceptionally
good (in ROI).

However, look at two more points:

First, what does it take to evaluate research? For
one important case, we know well: In school mostly
it takes a Ph.D. committee that, for each Ph.D.
granted, spends maybe hundreds of hours in close
work and evaluation. Then after school, for a
submitted paper, there are reviewers, editors, and
editors in chief, and they all play a role. To get
to be an editor in chief is, from a Ph.D. and a good
research record, maybe a 20 year effort. So, how
are venture partners, rarely with a Ph.D., who don't
really do research, going to do the work of
reviewers, editors, and editors in chief, not just
in one narrow field but in everything that might
land in their in-box? They can't. Could they
'outsource' the evaluations? Maybe, but there would
likely be risks there.

Second, the VPs and LPs seem to be highly concerned
that somehow 'the market' is some unpredictable,
chaotic, inscrutable swamp where even the best
research results can get laughed at and die.

So, apparently so far in IT the investors just
concentrate on 'let the market decide'. If 'the
market' means that Yahoo writes a check mostly just
for reasons of buzz, publicity, internal
inspiration, etc., so be it.

Could there be something else? Perhaps: (1) Get
what one VP calls a "big ass problem" (BAP). So, if
can get a good or much better solution for this BAP,
then there should not be much question about
virality, 'traction', happy users/customers, or
'product/market fit'. Or there is Sequoia's
optimistic remark, "A huge market with customers
yearning for a product developed by great engineers
requires very little firepower.". (2) Do some
research to get the solution. Or to modify the
(1)-(2), get a list of BAPs and a list of research
results likely can achieve or build on, and then
pick a pair of a BAP and a research result that
provides the needed solution. This pair picking is
part of 'problem selection' and widely viewed as
important for success. Then do the evaluation of
the solution, possibly presented just on paper,
e.g., much as in a journal article, but with a
better organized approach than the peer-reviewed
journals use.

So, can such pair picking and evaluations lead to
success? For success in the market, recall the BAP.
For the success research promised, yes. Examples of
this last? Sure: What the US DoD has done, with
batting average much higher than the VPs, since
about 1940. E.g., the USAF's GPS was the second
version; the first was by the US Navy, with crucial
early work at the JHU/APL in Maryland. The work was
proposed essentially just on paper, and the rest is
history. For another example, when the U-2 was shot
down, the US wanted a replacement -- Mach 3+,
80,000+ feet, 2000+ miles without refueling. Kelly
Johnson drew a picture, and the rest is history,
right, the SR-71. Net, it really is possible to
plan projects with "unique, new, powerful, valuable
technology" and execute the plans successfully.
VPs, LPs, listen up.

Net, likely a better solution would be for
researchers to talk of the value of their work at
media parties on their yachts, 250+ feet long. Or
"money talks". Or, the VPs and even the LPs have
been known to rush for 'the next big thing'. Well,
a few IT researchers with $1+ billion exits could be
a 'next big thing'.

Funding for such work? Well, just do an MVP by
licensing some code from SRI or some such, put a
mobile app in front of it, get a lot of publicity,
sell out for $30 million, and then use that cash to
fund the real project. So, that would be a $30
million Series A where the VPs get 0% for a project
without yet even a single dollar of revenue, user,
or line of code!

Researchers, believe me: When your serious project
is the next big thing and you are worth $1+ billion,
your little MVP $30 million weekend will be
forgiven!

Whatever we do, currently we are crawling like a
snail and, instead, very much need to get going, and
VPs and LPs need to be part of it for all concerned
including themselves.