It might just work. Seriously though if you've established yourself and sold a few startups already with good outcomes for investors then you're already in line for the investment aren't you? You would basically have to convince them not to invest that some how you'd had your day.
Given that the journal kept the paper on the back-burner, as they did, it's like an investor coming in to a bit of extra cash and just saying "what the heck, it looks like dkarls's crackers but something might actually work".
There could also be the fame angle - even if they realise it's crackpot it can bring in some extra readers or get some citations because of the famous name. If they get refutations of the famous person's position then that could snowball nicely - "The Journal of Stuff That Looks Sound-ish, they were the ones that printed Sokal's paper where he went mental ...".
That's the idea that it shows something about the whole field which is nonsense (even though Sokal said himself that this was not is point, he could certainly foresee it would have been read as such). For once, if it did, the same technique could be used to discredit a lot of fields, and not just in humanities: writing pseudo jargon and getting it accepted, especially if you have a famous name, is possible in most fields (see CS papers which were auto-generated and got accepted). In many fields, researchers are unfortunately incapable of judging much more than the surface of the arguments, for various reasons (ultra-specialization, lack of time related to the continuous growth of published papers, etc...). I am not defending it either (that's one of the reason I left academia myself), but the actual meaning of the whole hoax is much more minor that people may think from outside.
No it wouldn't. In the startup case, there would be a personally significant amount of money involved. All of a sudden, people get a whole lot smarter when money is involved.
Sounds like 1999-2000.
Or, to turn the tables, suppose a Harvard Business School professor pitched a business idea to Richard Dawkins to make money by producing flu vaccine through a process entirely made up by stringing together impressive-sounding terminology that the business professor pulled out of biology papers. Suppose Richard Dawkins offered to invest money in the business. Would you say, "Oh, that doesn't mean anything. Richard Dawkins is quite competent at biology. He only mistook an incomprehensible stream of jargon for a plausible way of manufacturing flu vaccine because he was confused by the business plan?"